Finally a Free C Compiler for PIC10/12/16 Now Available

[pkshima]

Hi-Tech now definitly supports pic16f628/A. I have been blinking LEDs all night
Plus, I can see all toolsuites in MPLAB again.

In my case when I installed MPLAB 8.10, it automatically ran the picc installer afterward. I just made sure I checked all boxes of the type "Add to PATH Environment" etc.

You can try uninstalling all previous Hi-Tech and MPLAB stuff. Then install Hi-Tech followed by MPLAB. See if it helps.

 

[Mike - K8LH]

I'm not sure I'm willing to try it again when I have so many unanswered questions. For one thing, where is the supported device list? The User Manual pdf file in the v9.60PL2 install is dated February '08 and the supported device list in the back of the manual doesn't include the 16F628/A or 12F683. The supported device list on the Hi-Tech web site refers to "all baseline PICs" being supported but I can't find a definition on their site that tells me what they consider to be "baseline PICs".

Hi-Tech may have a nice product but they've made it just too scary for me to even try it out.

Mike

 

[pkshima]

Hmmm. The line "all baseline PICs" was used only in the previous product PIC C lite.
Now they have "HI-TECH C® PRO for the PIC10/12/16 MCU Family" which you have to run in Lite mode. Their product naming scheme is so ... clueless.

Anyways, with the new thing, you have ...

Supports *all* PIC10/12/16 devices; and
Has no memory or time restrictions.

Perhaps their clueless naming scheme is the problem.

 

[Mike - K8LH]

So that's my mistake. I downloaded Hi-Tech PICC-Lite instead of Hi-Tech C Pro for PIC10/12/16. Argh!!!

 

[3v0]

So that's my mistake. I downloaded Hi-Tech PICC-Lite instead of Hi-Tech C Pro for PIC10/12/16. Argh!!!

I asked you about that yesterday.

The latest release (v9.60PL2) of HI-TECH C® PRO for the PIC10/12/16 MCU Family includes Lite mode

Are you installing an older lite product? Now that I have MPLAB back I a going to give the HI-Tech install another try.

It is interesting that you hand the install problem with the older product too. I must have been around for a while.

 

[Mike - K8LH]

I asked you about that yesterday.


It is interesting that you hand the install problem with the older product too. I must have been around for a while.

Yeah, you asked me about it but you quoted me where I specifically said I installed PICC Lite with the exact same version number so I thought we were talking about the same thing. Selecting PICC-Lite on their download page seemed more intuitive than selecting C PRO (with Lite mode) since PICC-Lite is the 'free' product mentioned on Microchip's MPLAB page.

Overall I find their web site, product nomenclature and descriptions rather cryptic. And since I doubt I'll ever be able to justify purchasing their expensive 'full' product I feel it's not worth the effort to install it and learn how to use it just to find out that it produces cruddy code without the optimizations.

I think I'll stick with the free/lite version of BoostC for now. It produces reasonably good output, supports all of the PIC12/16 devices, and I can live with the 2K flash / 2 banks RAM limitations (for now).

Thanks for jumping in and trying to help and sorry about the misunderstanding.

Mike

 

[3v0]

The problem with bad web info is not unique to Hi-Tech.

A while back I quoted from a source boost web page which had outdated info.

But I have to say that so far I like BootC.

I am slowly building a header file for my demos that allows me to build the same source with C18 or bootC. Mostly it is a bit of code to add the setup for interrupt and interrupt_low in C18 to make it look like boostC and using my own register names that #defined what each compiler requires. So far the bit field names have been identical and require no translation. I wish the Microchip would provide the processor .h files to the compiler vendors. Yup wishful thinking.

 

[Mike - K8LH]

The problem with bad web info is not unique to Hi-Tech.

A while back I quoted from a source boost web page which had outdated info.

But I have to say that so far I like BootC.

I am slowly building a header file for my demos that allows me to build the same source with C18 or bootC. Mostly it is a bit of code to add the setup for interrupt and interrupt_low in C18 to make it look like boostC and using my own register names that #defined what each compiler requires. So far the bit field names have been identical and require no translation. I wish the Microchip would provide the processor .h files to the compiler vendors. Yup wishful thinking.

OMG, faulty and/or outdated web info' is a pet peeve of mine. Please don't get me started (grin).

Your common header project sounds like a worthwhile endeavor.

I suppose my goal is to publish projects and demos that use the lite/free version of BoostC to eliminate financial road blocks for potential newcomers.

Regards, Mike