Also these day many of the errors and especially the warning include detail in the text of a compiler switch you might want to use to over-ride the thing being called out.
These days they leave you in almost no doubt as to what is wrong and they even do that thing now where the line in question is reprinted with a caret on the line below saying exactly where in the line the compiler thinks the error is so when you see error (213:17) meaning line 213, column 17 you no longer have to count across to work out exactly where character 17 falls - the compiler shows you. One of the great things that has happened to GCC over the last 10 years is that the error messages have got really good. This my cut from text's and project's, some tests, avr-gcc vs xc8-avr They still document the use of ISR in the user manual, so could have saved everyone the trouble by just defining _interrupt into something already in use. The _interrupt define in cci.h use a non-gcc 'handler' attribute that takes in a vector number instead of a name, so you end up needing to use SOME_ISR_vect_num instead of SOME_ISR_vect, in addition you now need to create a function name of your choosing which will transform into _vector_N (you don't even get to see the name), and specify a return type (void). They could have simply made _interrupt a define like ISR and would have been better off. They now have an _interrupt attribute that still differs from every other _interrupt they already have (xc16/xc32/xc8-pic) so not sure why the need to make the names all the same. You can mostly 'define' your way back to gcc if cci was in use. There are probably only a few differences when using cci syntax (cci.h), and only one of them has no gcc equivalent (_at). >Do we have some sort of a "compatibility library" between Studio and XC8? I presume there is some grand scheme in mind where they want to take advantage of being able to have data/bss sections in non-contiguous locations (hence the need to store each 'chunk' info in flash and process them one by one).
XC8-avr does startup code in a different way- they init data/bss in chunks/sections for some reason, and probably accounts for some of the difference (was most/all of the difference in what I briefly tested). > I was expecting rather opposite results. You end up with a compiler that is used by everyone, and the mcu manufacturer can then work on the things it should be working on. I like the Arm model- get the gcc compiler from Arm, get your mcu's from those that make the mcu's. The XC8-avr in an early version would sometimes allocate the same address to 2 var's, which also took a while to figure out, and in that case I simply just switched to gcc 7.3.0 and have used since without any problems. Submitted a case, and was eventually fixed. I was about to give up using pic until I simply took the asm listing and went through it instruction by instruction, eventually discovering the problem with the compiler generated isr epilogue.
The unexplainable things that were happening from time to time was indicating I just didn't know how to use one of the simplest mcu's around. The pic version was restoring a prologue saved register back to the wrong address in the epilogue when a specific option was enabled. If the tests were working I wouldn't have seen these problems, and whatever testing was in place did me little good. I'm not sold on the 'millions of tests' as being something great, as the only two compiler problems I ever had were XC8-pic and XC8-avr. The source is available as required so its easy to see what you need to do, and there is no need to go through the whole compile process again. XC8 is licensed under gpl, so just change a few bytes in a few files and you have whatever version you want, and can then compare to anything else.
HI-TECH Software | Microchip Technology - Wikipediaīest VPN service in 2020: Safe and fast don't come for free | ZDNet Re YouTube, a VPN may enable access though am uncertain VPN are VPN aren't available to you.Ģ2+ years - Microchip Technology acquired HI-TECH Software and their toolchains. Tests - 22+ years of test suite development, nearly one million tests, complete test suite ran for every release MPLAB XC8 v2 for AVR - const implies the _flash attributeģ.
FSF test suite is based on DejaGNU Microchip test suite is very more stringent and ran on Microchip MCU.
"Regards to the XC, they're based on GCC, so where is the incentive to switch from AVR Arm GCC to the XC Pro compiler if support and/or specific certifications aren't a hard requirement?"ġ.