gnupic: Thread: Re: [gnupic] PIC 16F690

Hi,

  That user propably would be me. Still actively studying the F690 and
F4550. Development toolchain is mainly piklab & gputils for me. If I
have faced really weird behaviour which I haven't been able to solve by
reading the code, I have been using Windows MPLAB debuging, which I do
not prefer at all.

  I also would like to re-enable my vote for F690.

    -Mika

> Hi,
> A couple years back, there was an exchange between Scott Dattalo and a
> user
> asking about support for the PIC 16F690.  Scott answered that there was as
> yet no support, but that he could whip up PWM-less 16F690 support in not
> much time.  The user responded enthusiastically, and that was the end of
> the
> thread.
>
> I'd like to add my voice to that user's, and say that even limited support
> for the f690 would be really great.  A lot of people are probably getting
> used to the f690, since it's what the popular PICkit2 comes with.
> - Ted
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
>
>

On 5/22/07, Theodore D. Sternberg ####@####.#### wrote:
> Hi,
> A couple years back, there was an exchange between Scott Dattalo and a user
> asking about support for the PIC 16F690.  Scott answered that there was as
> yet no support, but that he could whip up PWM-less 16F690 support in not
> much time.  The user responded enthusiastically, and that was the end of the
> thread.
>
> I'd like to add my voice to that user's, and say that even limited support
> for the f690 would be really great.  A lot of people are probably getting
> used to the f690, since it's what the popular PICkit2 comes with.
> - Ted

Support in which program?  '690 is supported by SDCC and gputils.

Regards,
Mark
markrages@gmail
-- 
Mark Rages, Engineer
Midwest Telecine LLC
####@####.####

On Wed, 23 May 2007, Mark Rages wrote:
> Support in which program?  '690 is supported by SDCC and gputils.

Sorry.  I should have said I was talking about gpsim.

I'm not sure if any of you are into coding at all, but you
could have a look at the 18f2455 patch I send in a while back
and use it as a start.
Having said that, I'm completely unfamiliar with the 16F690.

Martin

On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 12:53:21PM +0300, ####@####.#### wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>   That user propably would be me. Still actively studying the F690 and
> F4550. Development toolchain is mainly piklab & gputils for me. If I
> have faced really weird behaviour which I haven't been able to solve by
> reading the code, I have been using Windows MPLAB debuging, which I do
> not prefer at all.
> 
>   I also would like to re-enable my vote for F690.
> 
>     -Mika
> 
> > Hi,
> > A couple years back, there was an exchange between Scott Dattalo and a
> > user
> > asking about support for the PIC 16F690.  Scott answered that there was as
> > yet no support, but that he could whip up PWM-less 16F690 support in not
> > much time.  The user responded enthusiastically, and that was the end of
> > the
> > thread.
> >
> > I'd like to add my voice to that user's, and say that even limited support
> > for the f690 would be really great.  A lot of people are probably getting
> > used to the f690, since it's what the popular PICkit2 comes with.
> > - Ted
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> > For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
> 

-- 
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 years from now GNU/Linux will be as redundant a term as MERT/UNIX is 
today. - Martin Habets
---------------------------------------------------------------------------