Hi-

I too have been using cc5x for awhile.  The limitations of the code is in the
size of the source files. While not the clearest of documentation, I've been able
to *LINK* code greater than the free compiler restrictions.  Errrr, let me ammend
that. The documentation on the compiler is really pretty good, it's the linker
stuff that was a little less straightforward.

I run cc5x from the command line.  One of the comments that I have in most of
my programs looks something like this......

/* COMMAND LINE FOR THIS:
   ..\cc5x  -a -I.. elink.c
*/

/* COMMAND LINE OPTIONS:
   -a : generate assembly file
   -I\my\files : include files path (multiple -I<path> is supported)
   -CA : generate COD file for debugging
   .. all options is printed when starting the compiler without arguments
*/

I personally like the mixed assembly/C code listing format for debugging. I then
use this as the basis for the disassembly view in the MPLAB.  Your tastes
may vary.

The restrictions state:
"The free edition supports up to 1024 instructions in any single C module. Several
modules can be linked together by MPLINK (the Microchip linker) to build larger
programs." 

And that's what I have done.  I can usually fit a module into the C sized program
and then link them together. This is the part of the documentation that didn't
seem too clear. But it was worked out.

Also, some "standard" C constructs are not compiled by the package.  I found it
somewhat irritating when things like:

  switch( state++ ) {

fails to compile, but usually one is able to make some code that will do it just
about as well.

It also looks like the configuration files used by the compiler can be manipulated
to support a PIC device that is not in their library.  Although I haven't had to
do it, if there is a new wizzybang from Microchip, then I think I have a chance to
modify an existing configuration file to compile code for the new part.

I personally have used the compiler for parts ranging from the 10F200 to the 16F877A
series.  Not that it doesn't support more, it's just the range that I can attest to.

The price is right, downloads quickly, and produces resonable and tight code.

Hope that this little observation helps!

 Cheers,

   Rich S.

---- Original Message ----
From:		William Chops Westfield
Date:		Tue 6/26/07 21:50
To:		Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Subject:	Re: [PIC] Low-cost PIC C compilers


On Jun 26, 2007, at 4:15 PM, Mark Rages wrote:

> For someone just beginning, I'd recommend considering a
> microcontroller with GCC support.  This may not be a PIC.
>
gcc doesn't exactly come with a beginner-class IDE, does it?
(Possibly excepting "Arduino")  For someone just beginning,
maybe a set of CLI-based tools aren't the best idea?  (OTOH,
if they're going to do embedded programming, "leaving the GUI
nest"  might be a good thing.)

A fair number of the commercial C compilers have "evaluation
versions" that produce reasonable amounts of code for a
reasonable number of processors for "hobbyist" use.  I've
been using CC5X a bit, for instance.  Hi-TECH recently
expanded the PICC-lite capabilities quite a bit as well.

And there's JAL, which is enough C-like to be usable for
a C programmer, I think.  Though you lose any portability
that you might have been aiming for by using a HLL.

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

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