On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 4:28 AM, Ruben J=F6nsson wrote= : > This is also my understanding. No extra code is deliberately added > but rather not removed in succesive optimization steps. In XC16 and > XC32 you have at least one optimization level even in the free > version, which improves code size by about 20-30%. This is one reason why I've considered moving up to the PIC24F chips. I know a lot of people that like them, and they seem like an ideal next step, especially since they are a bit more suited to C. But then I am learning embedded C _and_ a new family at the same time. > I have done one project with the XC8 free compiler and I ended up > going through the disassembly for time critical code areas and did > the optimization myself. Not too much work for this small project. How exactly do you do this? I am just curious. > I also recommend MPLABX in favor of MPLAB8. I would never go back > even though there still are some problems, especially when debugging > but I can manage well enough with an ICD3. Always debug with no > optimization though. Sticking with MPLAB is one of the reasons I am looking towards XC. I like the idea of using the same IDE regardless of the language tools. I do need to hop on the MPLABX bandwagon though, until now I've still been using an older version of 8. I really like the idea of being able to work natively on my Mac, rather than in my Parallels WinXP VM. Josh --=20 A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams --=20 http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .