gnupic: Re: [gnupic] Re: GCC port of PIC
Subject:
Re: [gnupic] Re: GCC port of PIC
From:
"Xiaofan Chen" ####@####.####
Date:
16 Mar 2006 11:33:54 +0000
Message-Id: <a276da400603160333j3b256422s84bf9d354534e44a@mail.gmail.com>
On 3/16/06, John Steele Scott ####@####.#### wrote:
> Colm O' Flaherty wrote:
> > I'd like to see what everyone else thinks though.. Are people migrating
> > off 14 bit PICs, or are they still being used?
>
> I'm currently working on migrating a PIC16 design over to a dsPIC (we don't
> use the DSP functionality, dsPIC was chosen just because it is a nice
> architecture and PIC24 didn't exist yet). However, I can see us still using
> the 14-bit chips in future projects due to their lower cost and power
> consumption. A Free C compiler for the PIC16's would certainly be nice to
> have.
We are also still mostly using PIC16F and Silicon Labs C8051F. We do not
need the power of dsPIC and can not afford the power consumption of
dsPIC for small sensors.
> The PIC18 series seems a bit pointless now that there is PIC24, especially
> for people developing on GNU.
>
I think the smaller PIC18s are still quite useful. PIC24/dsPIC33 are all
relatively big. But you are correct that PIC18F is still at higher cost than
PIC16F and higher-end PIC18F is not so competitive against other MCUs.
I am not so sure whether dsPICs and PIC24 will be really competitive in the
market.
I agree that a free and good C compiler for the PIC16's would certainly be
nice to have. The problem is that whether gcc is a good starting point or
not for 14-bit PICs or even 12-bit PICs. Maybe it is better to improve
SDCC for it.
I admit that I do not know much about compilers but I believe 14-bit PIC
is worse than 8051 for C compiler yet there are no (good) gcc based compiler
for 8051 (SDCC is quite good for 8051). That might tell something.
Regards,
Xiaofan
