OT: After using gcc, I sure love CCS

[newguy]

Quite some time ago I had a Linux project dumped in my lap when someone quit abruptly. I was able to trip my way through all the programs and add some features without too much grief.

Recently I discovered some issues with the project that were related to the kernel. We hired a consultant to work on migrating all our stuff to work with the latest kernel. He had to change to a different release of gcc in order to get our old programs to work under the new kernel. That's when we discovered that some of the old programs no longer worked.

I tend to try to write RAM efficient code. If I need to store a value that can vary from 0 - 10, I'll declare it as an "int8" (or whatever the equivalent nomenclature is for the compiler). No need to waste a larger number of bits to hold a small value, right?

The issue boiled down to the gcc compiler not properly handling variables less than the native width of the processor. Badly mishandling them. The consultant had traced the problem down to a variable suddenly getting corrupted when a different variable (both were part of an array of bytes) was changed. Suspecting that the compiler wasn't properly handling a byte variable, I simply changed the array declaration from byte to word and the problem vanished.

We all know that CCS has its issues, but I still like it. A lot. One of the best things about it is that if it was the CCS compiler that was doing this, all I'd have to do is write a simple program to demonstrate the fault and email it to CCS. In the next release, they'd fix it.

With gcc.....where do I even go to let anyone know about this? I know there are official bug tracking mechanisms, but since it's an open source project, good luck with getting any kind of support. I know because I've sent compiler issue reports in the past.

And good luck trying to figure out if a subsequent release has fixed the issue.

Just a little vent. Don't knock CCS because in the grand scheme of things, they're pretty good.

[temtronic]

I've been using it since v2.540 (1998 ?) and always found the staff to be helpful ! HOW they can get thousands of variations of PIC to even work under PCM is a mystery to me, let alone the vast array of functions AND give real examples of code all for a fairly low buck !! And the compiler is only part of their companies offerings.
Frankly to anyone who critizes them , fine, roll your OWN compiler for even ONE PIC type with just 10% of what they offer, I dare you.
I'm NOT a C programmer but with their help every program I've cut works,maybe not to 'standard' but bottom line it works !
Jay