On 10/19/07, Matt Pobursky <piclist@mps-design.com> wrote:
> > Matt doesn't seem to think CCS is a toy.
>
> No, I don't. We don't use the CCS supplied libraries all that much except
> for "quick and dirty" projects -- test code, test sets, things like that.
> For production code we have a standard framework template and a lot of
> libraries we've developed that port easily from one microcontroller family
> to another.

Now I understand your point. You do not use the CCS libraries! And that
is the point CCS is touting against other C compilers.

> CCS is always a "work in progress". As long as you remember this and stick
> with a version you find stable then you will be OK. I just recently
> upgraded to their 4.x version because I needed support for some newer PICs.
> The 4.x version of the compiler was a major overhaul and the early versions
> were quite buggy (sounds like Windows, huh?). I let the dust settle over
> the past six months and the version I'm running now seems very stable and
> I've had no problems with it. I had been using the same previous 3.x
> version for well over a year before that and still have it installed.

I see. This is very good advice for CCS users. So the commens that
CCS was buggy is really true but the new versions are better according
to your experiences.

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