On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 18:35 -0400, Tom Sefranek wrote:
> Close, it was the PIC18C452.
> I have NEVER been even close to out of code space.

Then you haven't done very much.

> It takes a HLL Compiler to do that.

What?? No, not at all. I've run out of code space multiple times,
without an HLL. 

>  Now RAM and cycles on the other hand...

Well there you go. More often then not when approaching a problem a
designer has choices as to what resources are more important.

There are many cases where code space can be sacrificed to end up with
more cycles and ram to play with. A good example of this is dealing with
complex equations. While simply putting the equation into the PIC works,
and doesn't use much code (since most of the math code would already be
there for other purposes), it often ends up using a TON of cycles and
quite a few ram locations.

OTOH if you use a lookup table (with perhaps some small interpolation)
you give up a lot of code space to free up a ton of cycles and ram.

If you regularly run out of ram and cycles, and yet never run out of
code space it SOUNDS like you aren't balancing things in such a way to
make as much use of your hardware as possible.

There's nothing wrong with this, it'll just mean you need a more
powerful PIC to do the job then is technically required. 

In a hobbyist type environment this is fine, since an extra $2 for a
more powerful PIC doesn't matter. In a professional environment this
isn't that good, since your product will be more expensive then it needs
to be.

Sorry for being a little harsh, but saying an HLL is needed to run out
of code space is simply incorrect.

TTYL


-----------------------------
Herbert's PIC Stuff:
http://repatch.dyndns.org:8383/pic_stuff/

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist