View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
parrothead
Joined: 30 Mar 2007 Posts: 3 Location: Frederick, MD
|
Does anyone have a copy of compiler PCM v2.732? |
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:53 pm |
|
|
Does anyone still have a copy of the compiler for 14 bit Pic 16F876, PCM v2.732? CCS was able to provide a copy of v2.734, but it compiles slightly different and I am trying to match a hex file currently in production.
Thanks!!
:)glen _________________ :)parrothead |
|
|
dyeatman
Joined: 06 Sep 2003 Posts: 1934 Location: Norman, OK
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:35 pm |
|
|
I have 2.732 but I cannot provide it unless CCS gives me permission to do so. If you can get them to send me a message I can make it available.
Tell them I am customer #7099 - Yeatman and they can send me a message using the email address they have on file. |
|
|
parrothead
Joined: 30 Mar 2007 Posts: 3 Location: Frederick, MD
|
I talked to CCS.... |
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:19 am |
|
|
Their response:
This message is a reply to CCS e-mail id: 7D0477
Yes as long as he only sends you the PCM.DLL file.
I could e/mail you directly if you are still able to help.
Thanks,
Glen
gharnish@hach.com _________________ :)parrothead |
|
|
dyeatman
Joined: 06 Sep 2003 Posts: 1934 Location: Norman, OK
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:49 am |
|
|
Glen,
I just got confirmation from CCS on this. The 2.732 version is in my archives at home and I will send the PCM.DLL file in ZIP format to you later this afternoon (@4PM CDT) via the email address you provided in your last response..
Dave |
|
|
parrothead
Joined: 30 Mar 2007 Posts: 3 Location: Frederick, MD
|
Darn Firewall!! |
Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 8:20 am |
|
|
Hi Dave,
I had two messages blocked by our wonderful firewall here at work (I'll save the rant). Would you mind resending to my yahoo account. Sad that I cannot get my job done without that.
Thanks!!!
:)glen
glen.harnish@yahoo.com _________________ :)parrothead |
|
|
libor
Joined: 14 Dec 2004 Posts: 288 Location: Hungary
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:00 pm |
|
|
Sorry, guys, for the silly question, I just can't figure out what might be the reason someone wants to have an old version compiler to produce exactly the same hex file as it compiled once. ...I am just curious. |
|
|
treitmey
Joined: 23 Jan 2004 Posts: 1094 Location: Appleton,WI USA
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 1:16 pm |
|
|
For me I keep All production code is in ms sourcesafe with the compiler used for it.
If I need to update a tiny chunk of code for production hardware I'll do it using the original compiler.
Now perhaps.. He is changing a tiny bit of code. He tried using the newest compiler BUT it broke all kinds of other things. He wants to use the compiler that he knows worked before. |
|
|
Ttelmah Guest
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 2:52 pm |
|
|
The problem is that just because code 'worked' in one compiler version, you have no guarantee that it will still work in another. This is (less) still true with other compilers. Hence when archiving a 'job', I always save the compiler used for that version.
I also keep a 'comment' line near the top of the working sources, listing which compiler was used. If latter a compiler change causes a problem, I can then step back to the 'last known good'.
I saves a lot of time when you have to go 'back' to old code.
Best Wishes |
|
|
languer
Joined: 09 Jan 2004 Posts: 144 Location: USA
|
|
Posted: Thu Apr 05, 2007 10:25 pm |
|
|
Even though this may not be the case for Glen, on some certifiable products (safety critical, etc) you are required to validate the tools used for the project. If you have to modify the code, use of a different tool (this includes different version) requires re-validation of the tool (very unproductive).
I have never had such a thing with CCS projects, but some projects for my previous employer required all this "value-added" overhead. |
|
|
|