Post by thread:[PIC] compiler comparison

(I just added a PIC tag so everyone can see your message here in piclist) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: wb <spam_OUTwsbcommTakeThisOuTearthlink.net> Date: Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 9:45 AM Subject: compiler comparison To: .....piclistKILLspam@spam@mit.edu anyone have experience with the "boostc" compiler & "wiz-c" compiler product? they both support multiple PICmicro mcu series types and i'm wanting to avoid purchasing a separate compiler for each PIC type. any observations as to which has the most bang for the money? tia

:: would recommend neither because both look cheezy and would probably :: produce bloated code A very sweeping statement - have you tried either of them rather than go by looks? I've used Wiz-C for a number of years, mainly because they have an excellent simulator and wave injection package - though MPLAB is now catching up. I only use the 'c' environment as I always have mindset problems with RAD packages, but the Webbrick (not mine) was programmed completely using Wiz-C. Anyhow, the code is not as tight as XCSB or Hi-Tech (paid for version), but then the price is not the same as Hi-Tech - the main niggles about Wiz-C are an IDE that has weird editing inconsistencies - this has been since Wiz-ASM, and the writers obviously don't think truncation of cutting and pasting is a problem, or occasionally producing slightly different compilation results or the annoying 'cannot dived by zero' because of a misclick in the margins of the IDE when bookmarking or setting up a breakpoint. Breakpoints need to be deleted if you add code and recompile, otherwise they end up all over the shot. I haven't used Boost so can't comment - i can provide some 'C' code and the resultant assembler if the OP is interested, though you can download a trial version which is limited to 2K worth of program code, not sure if they still ahve it locked to the RAD environment only. One thing to note - is that if you wish to upgrade automatically to the new version each year with email support it'll cost you GBP35.00 each year. If you just want the compiler it'll be GBP15.00 . You can import Hitech and CCS programs into FED and it comes with a 'creator' program that allows you to add in new parts and stimulus files as well as RAD elements. Colin -- cdb, colinKILLspambtech-online.co.uk on 2/03/2009 Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk Hosted by: http://www.1and1.co.uk/?k_id=7988359

wsbcomm@earthlink.net said: anyone have experience with the "boostc" compiler & "wiz-c" compiler product? they both support multiple PICmicro mcu series types and i'm wanting to avoid purchasing a separate compiler for each PIC type. any observations as to which has the most bang for the money? russ says: I have used boostc, but not the others. like it a lot. Full product limited to 2 k code is available for download with docs, so why not try it. IDE is nice including source level simulation/debugging. Full price is also excellent.

On Mar 1, 2009, at 2:23 PM, Russ Hensel wrote: > anyone have experience with the "boostc" compiler & "wiz-c" compiler > product? they both support multiple PICmicro mcu series types and i'm > wanting to avoid purchasing a separate compiler for each PIC type. No experience with either one, but I notice that they both have free "evaluation" versions for download, so doing that sort of evaluation would seem to be a logical next step. You can even compare them to the Hi-tech and Microchip compilers (both would seem to be in a different price class than you're looking for, but both also have eval versions to try out.) Huh. So does anyone have a set of "benchmarks" aimed at microcontroller C compilers? I had in mind something "white box" that you'd have to look at the assembler to do a 'real' evaluation, that included common structures that are frequently optimized (or done poorly) on microcontroller architectures. Bit manipulation, direct port IO, function pointers, etc... BillW

>> anyone have experience with the "boostc" compiler & "wiz-c" compiler >> product? they both support multiple PICmicro mcu series types and i'm >> wanting to avoid purchasing a separate compiler for each PIC type. > >No experience with either one, but I notice that they both have free >"evaluation" versions for download, so doing that sort of evaluation >would seem to be a logical next step. You can even compare them to >the Hi-tech and Microchip compilers (both would seem to be in a >different price class than you're looking for, but both also have eval >versions to try out.) > >Huh. So does anyone have a set of "benchmarks" aimed at >microcontroller C compilers? I had in mind something "white box" that >you'd have to look at the assembler to do a 'real' evaluation, that >included common structures that are frequently optimized (or done >poorly) on microcontroller architectures. Bit manipulation, direct >port IO, function pointers, etc... I suspect the Hi-Tech C won't come out of this very well, judging by comments here in the recent past about the abysmal code optimization from the evaluation version.

> -----Original Message----- > From: .....piclist-bouncesKILLspam.....mit.edu [EraseMEpiclist-bouncesspam_OUTTakeThisOuTmit.edu] On Behalf > Of Alan B. Pearce > Sent: 02 March 2009 09:50 > To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. > Subject: Re: [PIC] compiler comparison > > >> anyone have experience with the "boostc" compiler & "wiz-c" compiler > >> product? they both support multiple PICmicro mcu series types and i'm > >> wanting to avoid purchasing a separate compiler for each PIC type. > > > >No experience with either one, but I notice that they both have free > >"evaluation" versions for download, so doing that sort of evaluation > >would seem to be a logical next step. You can even compare them to > >the Hi-tech and Microchip compilers (both would seem to be in a > >different price class than you're looking for, but both also have eval {Quote hidden}> >versions to try out.) > > > >Huh. So does anyone have a set of "benchmarks" aimed at > >microcontroller C compilers? I had in mind something "white box" that > >you'd have to look at the assembler to do a 'real' evaluation, that > >included common structures that are frequently optimized (or done > >poorly) on microcontroller architectures. Bit manipulation, direct > >port IO, function pointers, etc... > > I suspect the Hi-Tech C won't come out of this very well, judging by > comments here in the recent past about the abysmal code optimization from > the evaluation version. You can still run the compiler with full optimisation for a 45 day evaluation period. Regards Mike ======================================================================= This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use, forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or services. =======================================================================