Why would one want to use CCS C Compiler plug-in in MPLAB

matrixofdynamism · Joined: 06 Dec 2010 Posts: 25

I know that plug-in exists to add CCS C Compiler capability to MPLAB. I think that it will only work for compiling and thus generating a hex file but am not sure if a person can use debugging feature using that plug-in. Don't know :(

Similarly, plug-ins exist to add MPLAB functionality to CCS PIC C Compiler as well, I think.

I want to know the following 2 things.
1. Compared with using CCS PIC C IDE on its own, how much functionality does one have access to when using CCS PIC C plug-in but MPLAB as the GUI?
2. Why would one even want to do this at all? I mean just use MPLAB or CCS C compiler on its own. Why even use such plug-ins of this nature?

ezflyr · Joined: 25 Oct 2010 Posts: 1019 Location: Tewksbury, MA

Hi,

CCS offers two types of compilers, a 'command-line' version, and an IDE (Integrated Development Environment) version. I have the command-line version, which is really just the compiler 'engine', and I use MPLAB as my development environment. There is no need, or any useful reason, to use MPLAB with the IDE versions of the compiler.

John

temtronic · Posted: Tue Mar 24, 2015 2:17 pm

I've used the MPLAB IDE almost 'forever'. 15+ years ago all my PIC code was assembler, then got PCM V2.5xx. MPLAB allows for multiple compilers and I can program PICs using PICkit3 or PICSTART+, yet it all looks 'similar'.
When I had a problem with MPLAB V8.6xx, the microchip tech didn't understand that I NEVER use 'debug' so he told me how to default to 'release' mode.
Guess I'm just an 'old school' guy but I do not upgrade if it ain't busted!

Jay

Ttelmah · Joined: 11 Mar 2010 Posts: 19369

Yes. Historically I always slightly preferred the MPLAB development environment to the CCS IDE. Unfortunately, this has 'reversed' to some extent with MPLAB-X (whover wrote this should have their hands smashed with a sledgehammer, so they can never program again!...) - not that I dislike it you understand!... It is not quite as bad on a PC, as on the Mac. The Mac version seems almost unuseable, and full of bugs. For older chips that are supported by 'traditional' MPLAB, I still use it, and like the simulator, for just very gently working through some tiny area of code. For more modern chips, I've started to use the CCS IDE, since MPLAB-X, is just so bad. I also have full hardware ICE for many hundreds of chips. This 'runs rings' round ICD, with no change to the memory used etc., and the addition of scope grabbing and logic analyser type signal recording, without having to actually make any extra connections to the board. Unfortunately, support for the latest chips seems slower and slower in coming. This has plug-ins to run inside MPLAB, or MPLAB-X, but no ability to run in the CCS IDE.

RF_Developer · Joined: 07 Feb 2011 Posts: 839

I use the CCS IDE most of the time. I use non-X MPLAB to support old ICDs and to support old code compiled with Microchip C (specifically TCP/IP stacks as the CCS stack support lags well behind - as in years - the Microchip stacks). I do NOT compile CCS code from MPLAB.

PCM programmer · Joined: 06 Sep 2003 Posts: 21708