| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
j_s_connell
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 17
|
| CCS RTOS question |
 Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 4:31 pm |
 |
|
I just installed the newest PCH compiler 3.240. When I try to run the RTOS example, I get the following:
Executing: "C:\Program Files\PICC\Ccsc.exe" "ex_rtos_demo_1_tasks.c" +FH +DF +LN +T -A +M +Z +Y=9 +EA
*** Error 101 "C:\Program Files\PICC\Examples\ex_rtos_demo_1_tasks.c" Line 23(5,37): Library in USE not found
*** Error 100 "C:\Program Files\PICC\Examples\ex_rtos_demo_1_tasks.c" Line 30(6,29): USE parameter value is out of range "#USE RTOS must appear before #TASK"
*** Error 100 "C:\Program Files\PICC\Examples\ex_rtos_demo_1_tasks.c" Line 37(6,28): USE parameter value is out of range "#USE RTOS must appear before #TASK"
*** Error 100 "C:\Program Files\PICC\Examples\ex_rtos_demo_1_tasks.c" Line 43(6,28): USE parameter value is out of range "#USE RTOS must appear before #TASK"
*** Error 12 "C:\Program Files\PICC\Examples\ex_rtos_demo_1_tasks.c" Line 54(13,21): Undefined identifier -- rtos_run
5 Errors, 0 Warnings.
What am I missing? |
|
 |
treitmey
Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 1094
Location: Appleton,WI USA
|
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 5:18 pm |
|
|
| Can you roll back 3.239. I just compiled it without problem with pcwh |
|
|
PCM programmer
Joined: 06 Sep 2003
Posts: 21708
|
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 5:47 pm |
|
|
I created a project called ex_rtos_demo_1_tasks, and compiled it
with PCH vs. 3.239. I got these errors:
| Quote: | Executing: "C:\Program Files\PICC\Ccsc.exe" "ex_rtos_demo_1_tasks.c" +FH +DF +LN +T -A +M +Z +Y=9 +EA
*** Error 101 "C:\Program Files\PICC\Examples\ex_rtos_demo_1_tasks.c" Line 23(5,37): Library in USE not found |
I also tried several other recent versions. They all do the same
as above. |
|
|
j_s_connell
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 17
|
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:03 pm |
|
|
| It may be the case that they want us to use the pcwh to get the rtos. Which sucks. |
|
|
PCM programmer
Joined: 06 Sep 2003
Posts: 21708
|
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:11 pm |
|
|
Good call. The news page shows this:
http://www.ccsinfo.com/news.shtml
If you go to this page, they are heavily down-playing their command
line compilers:
http://www.ccsinfo.com/newtopiccwhat.shtml
| Quote: | PCB, PCM, or PCH
This is CCS's command line C compiler. It requires you to provide your
own editor, of which Microsoft's Notepad is adequate. Priced for hobbyists
and low throughput users. |
Of course, this is absurd. Nobody uses Notepad. They integrate it
with MPLAB. I emailed CCS about this a few days ago. I've yet to
receive a reply. I think they likely hired a new marketing person,
who is down-playing the command line compilers. They want people
to buy the $425 (US) PCWH. But that doesn't fit everyone's budget
or needs. Why mis-represent the command line compilers ?
I've already seen at least one post where a person said something
like "If I had only known I could buy the command line compiler and
integrate it with MPLAB, I would have done that". If you trick people
into spending more than they need to, it doesn't help you to get user
recommendations for the compiler. |
|
|
Storic
Joined: 03 Dec 2005
Posts: 182
Location: Australia SA
|
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:48 am |
|
|
I trying to get my head around RTOS. 
How does this compare to the ordinary way you program the PIC.
Is it as sugested; runs schedules, can you have a scrip file program that the RTOS can read and run. ie look at an input and control the output, while leaving the micro to do what it needs to
Andrew
_________________
What has been learnt if you make the same mistake?  |
|
|
j_s_connell
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 17
|
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:41 pm |
|
|
PCM I heartily agree... What makes this sneaky ploy even worse is the fact that it totally screws those of us who already own the command line comilers + maintenence. I've already paid for my compiler, and I dont really feel like paying another 450 dollars just to use the rtos. I dont even like their IDE,
Considering you are one of their greatest supporters, and extremely helpful to anyone who asks questions here, I hope they take serious consideration to your thoughts on this matter- but i doubt they will.
Maybe a petition here on the board will get them to change their minds, before this asanine policy gets entrenched. |
|
|
j_s_connell
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 17
|
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:54 pm |
|
|
| Also, would you happen to have the email of someone at CCS besides technical support? Its my experience that complaints sent through tech support get immeadiately discarded before reaching the eyes of someone that matters. |
|
|
Darren Rook
Joined: 06 Sep 2003
Posts: 287
Location: Milwaukee, WI
|
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:35 pm |
|
|
| j_s_connell wrote: | | PCM I heartily agree... What makes this sneaky ploy even worse is the fact that it totally screws those of us who already own the command line comilers + maintenence. I've already paid for my compiler, and I dont really feel like paying another 450 dollars just to use the rtos. I dont even like their IDE |
If you own the command-line compilers and are on active maintenance, you can upgrade to the IDE version of the compilers by paying the difference between the command line compilers and the Windows IDE. Talk to someone in Sales. (For example if you own PCM and PCB, you can get PCW for $200 [edit: oops I just did the math and that doesn't add up - anyways call sales and they can give you the real number])
Did you know that a few years ago the command line compilers could only use #opt 5? The full optimization was put back into the command-line compilers.
As for the RTOS, premium services should also cost a premium. Whether or not you think it's a premium service is another discussion altogether. If you're not happy with this I saw a free RTOS posted in the Code Library, and many other 3rd parties sell their own RTOS. Just my opinion.
Last edited by Darren Rook on Tue Dec 06, 2005 9:49 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
Darren Rook
Joined: 06 Sep 2003
Posts: 287
Location: Milwaukee, WI
|
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:41 pm |
|
|
Warp 13, PICStart Plus, ICEPIC? That page is ancient, probably written before MPLAB5...
And back then Notepad was better than MPLAB.
I believe there are plans to update that page, I just can't give you an answer as to when. |
|
|
j_s_connell
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 17
|
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 3:00 pm |
|
|
Darren, I think the real issue here is just plain misrepresnetation on the part of CCS. For example, I did not know that the command line compiler lacked full optimization. In fact, that pisses me off more. If they just told me in the first place that the PCH was crippled, I probably wouldnt be so mad, its just that I was under the impression that its a full featured compiler, minus their IDE. Which it isn't.
In the end, I will probably pay the difference so I can use the rtos, which I think is an extremely important feature (I almost always use an rtos for projects).
Also, the rtos that was posted in the code section is great, but its beta and has a few issues, And because the ccs rtos is out, the designer has decided not to maintain it. |
|
|
Darren Rook
Joined: 06 Sep 2003
Posts: 287
Location: Milwaukee, WI
|
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 3:04 pm |
|
|
| j_s_connell wrote: | | Darren, I think the real issue here is just plain misrepresnetation on the part of ccs. For example, I did not know that the command line compiler lacked full optimization. In fact, that pisses me off more. If they just told me in the first place that the PCH was crippled, I probably wouldnt be so mad, its just that I was under the impression that its a full featured compiler, minus their IDE. Which it isn't. |
Sorry, I guess I didn't make myself clear... The command-line compilers used to have less optimization, but that was taken out a year or two ago and given full optimization.
So your PCH has full optimization.
It used to be a selling point difference between PCW and PCM (PCH), that PCW had full optimization. |
|
|
Darren Rook
Joined: 06 Sep 2003
Posts: 287
Location: Milwaukee, WI
|
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 3:07 pm |
|
|
| j_s_connell wrote: | | Darren, I think the real issue here is just plain misrepresnetation on the part of ccs. |
Please look here:
http://www.ccsinfo.com/pcwide.shtml
This has all the differences between command-line and IDE. If there are other pages on the website that are misrepresenting or misleading you then please let us know so we can fix the errors. The one that PCM Programmer pointed out is a good one, please point out more.
Thanks. |
|
|
j_s_connell
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
Posts: 17
|
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 3:18 pm |
|
|
Darren-
Thank you for clarifying. Please understand that I am just a bit fustrated. I really do like ccs' compiler and have no intention of using another. I think its much easier to use than High Tech or C18 and is getting better all the time. I just wish I didn't have to pay more for the rtos, but I see that it's unavoidable.
Thanks again for your input.
James |
|
|
PCM programmer
Joined: 06 Sep 2003
Posts: 21708
|
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:05 am |
|
|
Darren has pointed out to me that that's an old web page -- probably
at least 3 years old. So I take back my comment where I speculated
that's it's a conspiracy by marketing. You know in engineering, we
always blame the marketing dept.  |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in
