gnupic: Re: [gnupic] GCC port of PIC
Subject:
Re: [gnupic] GCC port of PIC
From:
"Colm O' Flaherty" ####@####.####
Date:
15 Mar 2006 16:08:18 +0000
Message-Id: <BAY112-F26D9593B66B73423FC767AB4E60@phx.gbl>
There are still a lot of 14 bit PICs out there though (I still only use 14
bit PICs).. and if we make mistakes with the GCC implementation, I'd rather
make them with the 14 bit port, than with the 16 bit port..
Once the 14 bit port is running, a 16 bit port should be a reasonably easy
migration. On the other hand, if we start with the 16 bit port, we'll never
develop a 14 bit port.. :)
I'd like to see what everyone else thinks though.. Are people migrating off
14 bit PICs, or are they still being used?
As for Java.. I agree, don't think it would be too useful on the 14 bit, but
maybe on the higher-end 16 bit chips, it might be useful.. (it's an
interesting academic exercise to compile Java for PIC, if nothing else :)
) It comes for free anyway if we develop the PIC backend, so wheres the
disadvantage? Having C/C++ for PIC out of the box on Linux (via GCC) is a
bit of a dream.. I'm surprised it hasn't been done already..
Colm
>From: "Xiaofan Chen" ####@####.####
>Reply-To: ####@####.####
>To: ####@####.####
>Subject: Re: [gnupic] GCC port of PIC
>Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 22:46:32 +0800
>
>GCC port for 14 bit PICs�HInteresting. Maybe it is better to start with
>16-bit
>PICs (18F). I think PIC18F are now getting more and more popular.
>
>We can still use assembly for 14-bit PICs even though something like
>HiTech PICC is really good to have (but it is not free and rather
>expensive).
>
>Do we need Java for PIC? ;-)
>
>Regards,
>Xiaofan
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
>For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
>
