I'm admitting that in my ONE test, HiTech generated faster code, but I think it's an anomaly. C18 is supposed to be at least comparable though I'm not sure who to listen to there. C18 has a smarter overall architecture anyways, IMHO. The differences are subtle. IIRC one of the weird things with PICC18 was that you could declare, use, and pass ROM constant data pointers the same was as you do RAM pointers. That sounds convenient at first but then you wonder how that works since RAM and ROM pointers would be accessed by completely different means. The thing is they pulled some funky tricks under the hood to make it work that way that cause problems in some circumstances, probably slows it down a lot of the time too. So I'm not sure if HiTech would be faster or slower, but I think C18 was smarter overall anyways. And you can download Student Edition free from Microchip. I'd need to see a compelling reason to drop it for a third party compiler. Danny solarwind wrote: > I think he's trying to say that HI-TECH's compiler generates faster code. > > On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 5:38 AM, Gerhard Fiedler wrote: > > >> On 2008-12-05 07:02:35, Danny Miller wrote: >> >> >>> Personally, I have a big project that ran much slower on Microchip's C18 >>> than it did with HiTech PICC18. [...] I'd recommend C18 over PICC18, >>> just don't see a compelling reason to go third-party. >>> >> ??? :) >> >> Gerhard >> -- >> 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