Pic, c programing

[Tuurbo46]

Hi

Im currently trying to become more conversent with pic, whilst using c
programming. Does anybody recommned any good books, or links to help me on
this journey?

Cheers Turbo

 

[Dingo]

You should ask the same question over on the PicList -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/piclist/
(Or search previous posts there)

The only drawback is signing up to Yahoo.
I bet you'll get 10 responses within 24 hours asking the same question
there. (Very active group)

BTW I too would like to see the answer to that question. If you are looking
to free PIC C compilers a few were mentioned here -
http://dingoaus.proboards34.com/index.cgi?board=genelectronics&action=displa
y&num=1092878126

And I'm sure there are others.

Cheers


"Tuurbo46" <alex@beale55.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:chi89l$md$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...

Hi

Im currently trying to become more conversent with pic, whilst using c
programming. Does anybody recommned any good books, or links to help me
on
this journey?

Cheers Turbo

 

[Don Taylor]

"Dingo" <nsjunkstuff@hotmail.com> writes:

BTW I too would like to see the answer to that question. If you are looking
to free PIC C compilers a few were mentioned here -
http://dingoaus.proboards34.com/index.cgi?board=genelectronics&action=displa
y&num=1092878126
And I'm sure there are others.

"Tuurbo46" <alex@beale55.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
Im currently trying to become more conversent with pic, whilst using c
programming. Does anybody recommned any good books, or links to help me
on this journey?

"Programming Robot Controllers" by Predko describes using the free
PICC Lite C compiler with the 16F627 (I think, it has been a few
months) and the Microchip IDE simulator/debugger/etc.

The only down side is that not too long after the book came out
Microchip completely revised their IDE user interface, and may have
done so again, and that makes small parts of the book that are
trying to tell you how to get started and interface the output of
the C compiler with the IDE, and using the IDE, much harder for a
beginner. Somebody could write a small revision that would make
this lots easier for the novice.

 

[Don Taylor]

"Dingo" <nsjunkstuff@hotmail.com> writes:

You should ask the same question over on the PicList -
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/piclist/
(Or search previous posts there)
The only drawback is signing up to Yahoo.
BTW I too would like to see the answer to that question. If you are looking
to free PIC C compilers a few were mentioned here -

"Tuurbo46" <alex@beale55.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
Im currently trying to become more conversent with pic, whilst using c
programming. Does anybody recommned any good books, or links to help me
on this journey?

There tends to be one other drawback to C Compiler & PicList, since
many/most of those folks got started writing code in raw assembly
language, it seems that many folks who have a problem with something
written in C and who ask the group often don't get wildly helpful
answers other than "it is probably your compiler and why don't you
learn assembly language for this like you are supposed to."

When I had a problem I went WAY overboard checking everything that
I could imagine, providing documentation, etc, etc, etc, and put
all this into my first question for the list. The responses were
mostly "wow, well written question, now, we still don't trust that
you are using a compiler so why aren't you doing this in assembly?"

Your mileage may vary, I hope it works out for you.
And you can always toss me questions via email.
I may give disclaimers but I really try to not tell
you something when I actually don't know the answer.
(email address is valid)

 

[CBarn24050]

There tends to be one other drawback to C Compiler & PicList, since
many/most of those folks got started writing code in raw assembly
language, it seems that many folks who have a problem with something
written in C and who ask the group often don't get wildly helpful
answers other than "it is probably your compiler and why don't you
learn assembly language for this like you are supposed to."

hi, the reason is that the pics are particularly bad at running C programs. If
you must use C switch to another chip.

 

[Michael A. Covington]

"CBarn24050" <cbarn24050@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040909002946.24357.00000240@mb-m16.aol.com...

There tends to be one other drawback to C Compiler & PicList, since
many/most of those folks got started writing code in raw assembly
language, it seems that many folks who have a problem with something
written in C and who ask the group often don't get wildly helpful
answers other than "it is probably your compiler and why don't you
learn assembly language for this like you are supposed to."

hi, the reason is that the pics are particularly bad at running C
programs. If
you must use C switch to another chip.

Yes, the PIC has a *strange* instruction set. It does not correspond very
well to any conventional programming language.

 

[Dingo]

Which chips are more 'C' friendly?

"CBarn24050" <cbarn24050@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040909002946.24357.00000240@mb-m16.aol.com...

There tends to be one other drawback to C Compiler & PicList, since
many/most of those folks got started writing code in raw assembly
language, it seems that many folks who have a problem with something
written in C and who ask the group often don't get wildly helpful
answers other than "it is probably your compiler and why don't you
learn assembly language for this like you are supposed to."

hi, the reason is that the pics are particularly bad at running C
programs. If
you must use C switch to another chip.

 

[Don Taylor]

cbarn24050@aol.com (CBarn24050) writes:

I wrote:
There tends to be one other drawback to C Compiler & PicList, since
many/most of those folks got started writing code in raw assembly
language, it seems that many folks who have a problem with something
written in C and who ask the group often don't get wildly helpful
answers other than "it is probably your compiler and why don't you
learn assembly language for this like you are supposed to."

hi, the reason is that the pics are particularly bad at running C programs.
If you must use C switch to another chip.

I respectfully tend to disagree. I think "culture" is usually the
major reason that most people do and say what they do.

I don't know about anyone else but the rather simplistic C code that
I write when using the PIC seems to compile surprisingly well and it
keeps me from making most of the little silly mistakes I'd otherwise
make if I were writing assembly with my old and decaying brain cells.

I served my time writing assembly code 30+ years ago and switched to
writing compilers 20 years ago.

 

[James Beck]

In article <20040909002946.24357.00000240@mb-m16.aol.com>, cbarn24050
@aol.com says...

There tends to be one other drawback to C Compiler & PicList, since
many/most of those folks got started writing code in raw assembly
language, it seems that many folks who have a problem with something
written in C and who ask the group often don't get wildly helpful
answers other than "it is probably your compiler and why don't you
learn assembly language for this like you are supposed to."

hi, the reason is that the pics are particularly bad at running C programs. If
you must use C switch to another chip.

Now, that's about as dopey a statement as I've seen here in a while.

I guess I had better tell all of my customers to throw away all of our
products, they obviously don't work well, NOT......
PICs don't have any problem running 'C'. Some of them (the 18 series)
do a better job of it, but I have even done a quick and dirty servo
pulse to camera interface in 'C' on a PIC12C509A in less than 5 minutes.
I have done more than my fair share of BIG assembly projects to know I
REALLY like 'C' and only resort to assembly where it is needed. It is
also nice to have a common library of routines like CRC's, ADPCM, and so
on that you can drag between MCU's/CPU's with out recoding. Do that in
assembler. Besides good 'C' compilers do some pretty good optimizations
these days. You should take a look at one.

 

[Michael A. Covington]

"Dingo" <nsjunkstuff@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41400000$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...

Which chips are more 'C' friendly?

Almost anything else Atmel AVR particularly.

 

[Dingo]

"Michael A. Covington" <look@ai.uga.edu.for.address> wrote in message
news:41410d82$1@mustang.speedfactory.net...

"Dingo" <nsjunkstuff@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41400000$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...
Which chips are more 'C' friendly?

Almost anything else Atmel AVR particularly.

Had a feeling that would be your response.....think I'll struggle with C on
PICs for now all the same

 

[CBarn24050]

hi, the reason is that the pics are particularly bad at running C programs.
If
you must use C switch to another chip.

Now, that's about as dopey a statement as I've seen here in a while.

Well if you look around you will find much worse, like this one.> but I have
even done a quick and dirty servo

pulse to camera interface in 'C' on a PIC12C509A in less than 5 minutes.

Just compare you c program running on a pic then run it on an avr. It is true
that the 18 series make a much better job. If you can put up with using 5 times
as much memory and a speed penalty of 10 to100 times slower then c is ok on
these chips.

 

[Don Taylor]

cbarn24050@aol.com (CBarn24050) writes:

hi, the reason is that the pics are particularly bad at running C programs.
If you must use C switch to another chip.

Now, that's about as dopey a statement as I've seen here in a while.

Well if you look around you will find much worse, like this one.

but I have even done a quick and dirty servo pulse to camera
interface in 'C' on a PIC12C509A in less than 5 minutes.

Just compare you c program running on a pic then run it on an avr.
It is true that the 18 series make a much better job. If you can
put up with using 5 times as much memory and a speed penalty of 10
to100 times slower then c is ok on these chips.

I dunno what kind of C code you guys are writing but when I look
at the generated assembly listing, with the PICC Lite compiler
optimizations turned on, I don't see that I would write assembly
code any smaller than that in most cases. Subscripting into an
array of constants that will never be modified looks to me like it
could be better thought out by the guys that wrote the code
generator but I understand they had to deal with the general case.
Other than that I haven't found anything that takes 5x the code or
10x-100x the time. I'm building state machines, reading inputs,
deciding on transitions, driving outputs.

Have you got an example where the code size is 5x larger than what
PICC Lite with optimizations generates?

 

[CBarn24050]

I dunno what kind of C code you guys are writing but when I look
at the generated assembly listing, with the PICC Lite compiler
optimizations turned on, I don't see that I would write assembly
code any smaller than that in most cases. Subscripting into an
array of constants that will never be modified looks to me like it
could be better thought out by the guys that wrote the code
generator but I understand they had to deal with the general case.
Other than that I haven't found anything that takes 5x the code or
10x-100x the time. I'm building state machines, reading inputs,
deciding on transitions, driving outputs.

Have you got an example where the code size is 5x larger than what
PICC Lite with optimizations generates?

It very hard to comment about the code your using if you quote some.I've never
used picc lite so I can't comment on it, however since it has the word lite in
it's title that usually means its not a real C compiler.

 

[David L. Jones]

cbarn24050@aol.com (CBarn24050) wrote in message news:<20040909002946.24357.00000240@mb-m16.aol.com>...

There tends to be one other drawback to C Compiler & PicList, since
many/most of those folks got started writing code in raw assembly
language, it seems that many folks who have a problem with something
written in C and who ask the group often don't get wildly helpful
answers other than "it is probably your compiler and why don't you
learn assembly language for this like you are supposed to."

hi, the reason is that the pics are particularly bad at running C programs. If
you must use C switch to another chip.

What rubbish.
Yes, the PIC 16x architecture is not optimised for high level
languages, but that doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't use C with it.
There are very good and efficient professional C compilers available
for the PIC, just like every other micro.
Using a good C compiler you shouldn't really notice the difference
between using a PIC or another micro more optimised for higher level
languages.
The good PIC C compilers can do everything a C compiler for any other
micro can do. All micros will vary in speed and memory usage of
compiler code to be sure, but there are so many other factors involved
in chossing the right micro that compiler efficiency is usually way
down on the list.

Dave

 

[James Beck]

In article <20040911122628.02938.00000489@mb-m11.aol.com>, cbarn24050
@aol.com says...

hi, the reason is that the pics are particularly bad at running C programs.
If
you must use C switch to another chip.

Now, that's about as dopey a statement as I've seen here in a while.


Well if you look around you will find much worse, like this one.> but I have
even done a quick and dirty servo
pulse to camera interface in 'C' on a PIC12C509A in less than 5 minutes.

Just compare you c program running on a pic then run it on an avr. It is true
that the 18 series make a much better job. If you can put up with using 5 times
as much memory and a speed penalty of 10 to100 times slower then c is ok on
these chips.

I guess the bottom line is this :
I have been an embedded programmer/designer since 1982, I have done more
than my fair share of assembly code and still do, BUT I use 'C' as my
predominate language for what I do to make a living. How about you?

I was not commenting your statement on what processor would run what
better/faster/most elegant. I am commenting on your ignorant statement
that the OP should consider something other than a PIC if he/she wants
to run 'C'. We don't know what the performance specs the OP is shooting
for, do we? Running 'C' on a PIC maybe more than adequate for the job
at hand. Making generalized statements just because you have a hard on
for AVRs make a statement in itself. Reminds me of the old saying,
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

Jim

 

[CBarn24050]

What rubbish.
Yes, the PIC 16x architecture is not optimised for high level

so why not use a chip whos archtecture is opimised for C as they are the same
price?

There are very good and efficient professional C compilers available
for the PIC,

I am not aware of any fully complient C compilers for the pic, I could be out
of date of course.

Using a good C compiler you shouldn't really notice the difference
between using a PIC or another micro more optimised for higher level
languages.

No you won't notice anything untill it really maters.

All micros will vary in speed and memory usage of
compiler code to be sure, but there are so many other factors involved
in chossing the right micro that compiler efficiency is usually way
down on the list.

Yes quite so, the problem is not the compiler but the missing hardware resorces
on the pic.

 

[David L. Jones]

cbarn24050@aol.com (CBarn24050) wrote in message news:<20040911195602.10848.00003533@mb-m25.aol.com>...

I dunno what kind of C code you guys are writing but when I look
at the generated assembly listing, with the PICC Lite compiler
optimizations turned on, I don't see that I would write assembly
code any smaller than that in most cases. Subscripting into an
array of constants that will never be modified looks to me like it
could be better thought out by the guys that wrote the code
generator but I understand they had to deal with the general case.
Other than that I haven't found anything that takes 5x the code or
10x-100x the time. I'm building state machines, reading inputs,
deciding on transitions, driving outputs.

Have you got an example where the code size is 5x larger than what
PICC Lite with optimizations generates?

It very hard to comment about the code your using if you quote some.I've never
used picc lite so I can't comment on it, however since it has the word lite in
it's title that usually means its not a real C compiler.

PIC-C Lite is the same high end compiler as the regular Hitech PICC,
but it only supports a few specific chips.
The PICC compiler is a really supurb and highly optimised compiler.
When you look at the assembler generated it's pretty darn tight and
you'd be hard pressed to write assembler that did much better on the
size or speed front.
Your statements that a C compiler for the PIC takes 5x the code or
10-100x the time of an AVR one is just plain silly and ill-informed.
You can get good and bad C compilers for the PIC and the same is true
for the AVR or any other micro. But even a "bad" C compiler is not
going to be an order of magnitude worse than a "good" one. The same
goes for differences in micro architectures.

I have recently started using C on the AVR and quite frankly I have
the found the opposite to what you claim. The CodeVision compiler I
used took more code space for floating point than my Hitech PICC
compiler on the PIC 16 series. I was not that impressed.

It's horses for courses.

Dave

 

[David L. Jones]

cbarn24050@aol.com (CBarn24050) wrote in message news:<20040913193724.22356.00000483@mb-m16.aol.com>...

What rubbish.
Yes, the PIC 16x architecture is not optimised for high level

so why not use a chip whos archtecture is opimised for C as they are the same
price?

There are many many reasons to choose the PIC over the Atmel and
vice-versa, having an architechure optimised for C is usually WAY down
on anyones list!

You can't make blanket statements like the PIC and AVR are the same
price, that is not comparing apples to apples. What about quatity?,
what about availability?, what about choosing the exact features you
want to save cost?, what about development systems and support?, what
about migration paths to higher volume?, higher performance?, lower
perfomance?, power?, pinout compatability?
I could go on.

I won't get into a debate over AVR vs PIC but suffice it to say that
the PICs have a LOT going for them, which is why they outsell the
Atmels and are used in everything from Smartcards to Playstations.
How about being able to migrate from FLASH to OTP to mask ROM?
How about having a truely massive device selection range to choose
from to meet a specific application?
How about having anything from a tiny SOT23 package to a DSP based
core?

The Atmels are poor competition in these areas.

There are very good and efficient professional C compilers available
for the PIC,

I am not aware of any fully complient C compilers for the pic, I could be out
of date of course.

You are many years out of date.
- PICC http://www.hitech.com.au/products/picccompiler.php
- Microchips own MPLAB C Compilers
- IAR www.iar.com
All are ANSI C complient.
There are probably others.

Dave

 

[CBarn24050]

Your statements that a C compiler for the PIC takes 5x the code or
10-100x the time of an AVR one is just plain silly and ill-informed.

That isn't what I said.

. The CodeVision compiler I
used took more code space for floating point than my Hitech PICC
compiler on the PIC 16 series. I was not that impressed.

Thats very suprising, I too would not be impressed.