| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
fastlink30
Joined: 14 May 2007
Posts: 33
|
| pic32 compiler |
 Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:51 am |
 |
|
why ccs not already offer compiler also for PIC32? there are plans for it? i think is big mistake for ccs not have it.
thanks |
|
 |
Ttelmah
Joined: 11 Mar 2010
Posts: 19383
|
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:02 am |
|
|
Because it is a completely different chip.
Not even a 'descendant'. Every feature is different.
It is based on the MIPS core, for which quite good compilers are already available.
Best Wishes |
|
|
FvM
Joined: 27 Aug 2008
Posts: 2337
Location: Germany
|
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:43 am |
|
|
Possible interest for a PIC 32 compiler is one point in the new features poll on the V5 download page, so CCS
is apparently thinking about it.
Besides the points mentioned by Ttelmah, I'm under the impression that CCS C has still difficulties unable to cope
with the number of registers to be managed with 16-Bit PICs, because there have been various bugs related
to register confusion, and there are still new ones from time to time. So I wonder if it would be a good idea
to start a PIC32 compiler development.
Another point is that PIC32 applications will often require TCP/IP support. The Microchip TCP library
is quite good, and well integrated with C32 (and probably XC32) compiler. In a realistic view it takes
several man years to to go there. |
|
|
asmallri
Joined: 12 Aug 2004
Posts: 1634
Location: Perth, Australia
|
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 7:17 am |
|
|
| FvM wrote: | The Microchip TCP library
is quite good, and well integrated with C32 (and probably XC32) compiler. In a realistic view it takes several man years to to go there. |
I agree with the later part regarding development effort however I would have classified Microchip's IP stack as rudimentary.
_________________
Regards, Andrew
http://www.brushelectronics.com/software
Home of Ethernet, SD card and Encrypted Serial Bootloaders for PICs!! |
|
|
bkamen
Joined: 07 Jan 2004
Posts: 1611
Location: Central Illinois, USA
|
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 12:17 pm |
|
|
| asmallri wrote: | | FvM wrote: | The Microchip TCP library
is quite good, and well integrated with C32 (and probably XC32) compiler. In a realistic view it takes several man years to to go there. |
I agree with the later part regarding development effort however I would have classified Microchip's IP stack as rudimentary. |
Definitely - it's a bare bones "get the chip just running"...
gotta give 'em credit though...
-Ben
_________________
Dazed and confused? I don't think so. Just "plain lost" will do. :D |
|
|
FvM
Joined: 27 Aug 2008
Posts: 2337
Location: Germany
|
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 2:25 am |
|
|
Hi Andrew,
| Quote: | | I agree with the later part regarding development effort however I would have classified Microchip's IP stack as rudimentary. |
It works for me as a usable starting point for internet enabled products, although some parts need to be
complemented. E.g. for the FTP part, rudimentary hits the point.
The other question is, what would you suggest as a better (ready-to-use, more functional, less buggy, possibly
smaller footprint...) TCP stack alternative for PIC32?
I apologize for moving from the original topic. To close the circle, if CCS decides for making a PIC32
compiler, it will most likely use a recent MHCP application library version for TCPIP.
Regards,
Frank |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in
