 |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 6:49 pm |
 |
|
Hey Darren Rooky
Why do you use your customers to test your compiler. Don't you guys have any class or professional pride?
I guess not. Keep up the bad work, you're showing your true spirit. |
|
 |
Martin Berriman
Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 66
Location: UK
|
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:49 am |
|
|
Hey! - A complete topic has disappeared. Does this apparent censorship happen often? The topic in question was about the linker in version 4 and I linked to it in a comment above which I have included below:
| Martin Berriman wrote: | New version out today 4.021 however it still has issues (see link)  |
What I was going to say is this: I have just had time to check the linker function in Ver 4.023. It does actually generate code that works now (using my very basic test code that flashes a couple of LEDs) which is an improvement but there are still issues:
1) If I build within the IDE then it does not create a HEX file. If instead I compile and then link using the command line, it does create the HEX file (which I tested above).
2) If I try to build a more complex program that includes the use of stdlibm.h then it throws an error as follows (*** Error 146 "main.hex" Line 1(0,1): Import error dyn mem mis-match true!=false). The exact same code compiles works ok in version 3.249.
Improving but still not usable for what I want... |
|
|
arunb
Joined: 08 Sep 2003
Posts: 492
Location: India
|
| RE: |
| Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:12 am |
|
|
Hi,
Is SourceBoost a better alternative to CCS ?? (weblink : [url] http://www.sourceboost.com/)[/url]
The SourceBoost Pro version supports 16F and 18F series, but what about the performance and support regarding code development ?? I mean there are so many CCS users that you always get someone to help you with problems.
But I am not sure wether SourceBoost has the same popularity .....
thanks
arunb |
|
|
CCS
Joined: 31 Oct 2005
Posts: 8
|
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 2:10 pm |
|
|
| Martin Berriman wrote: | Hey! - A complete topic has disappeared. Does this apparent censorship happen often? The topic in question was about the linker in version 4 and I linked to it in a comment above which I have included below:
| Martin Berriman wrote: | | New version out today 4.021 however it still has issues (see link) |
What I was going to say is this: I have just had time to check the linker function in Ver 4.023. It does actually generate code that works now (using my very basic test code that flashes a couple of LEDs) which is an improvement but there are still issues:
1) If I build within the IDE then it does not create a HEX file. If instead I compile and then link using the command line, it does create the HEX file (which I tested above).
2) If I try to build a more complex program that includes the use of stdlibm.h then it throws an error as follows (*** Error 146 "main.hex" Line 1(0,1): Import error dyn mem mis-match true!=false). The exact same code compiles works ok in version 3.249.
Improving but still not usable for what I want... |
Posts containing technical issues or bugs that have been resolved in compiler releases have been removed from the forum. Please submit technical issues directly to CCS at [email protected].
_________________
Custom Computer Services, Inc.
262-522-6500
PO Box 2452
Brookfield, WI 53008 |
|
|
PCM programmer
Joined: 06 Sep 2003
Posts: 21708
|
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 2:27 pm |
|
|
| Quote: |
Hey! - A complete topic has disappeared. Does this apparent
censorship happen often? The topic in question was about the linker in
version 4 and I linked to it in a comment above which I have included below:
Martin Berriman wrote:
New version out today 4.021 however it still has issues (see link) |
I don't think it was removed. I think it's all there. I clicked on the
link of the alleged missing topic this morning and it's there, with
all eight of dozen of Mr. Berriman's posts. This is it:
http://www.ccsinfo.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=75050
We all know that vs. 4 is going to be beta for quite a while.
Ttelmah gives regular reports on this and he doesn't mince any words.
I don't see the point in using CCS's forum to do "primal screams"
over and over again -- just use 3.249 until 4.x is ready. Or use 4.x
but be aware of the limitations. We all basically know this.
As far as CCS being bad, they just gave away the whole PCB compiler
(vs. 3.249) for free with MPLAB. Now I have the whole suite for 3.249:
PCM and PCH, which I bought, plus PCB. |
|
|
mcafzap
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Posts: 46
Location: Manchester, UK
|
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:28 pm |
|
|
| This smacks of censorship which I find most objectionable. You may remove this message as you choose. In any event I will not be purchasing your wonderful new version for some considerable time, if ever. |
|
|
PCM programmer
Joined: 06 Sep 2003
Posts: 21708
|
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:42 pm |
|
|
I don't think any censorship took place. The thread is still there.
The 2nd thing is, it's one thing to complain about a problem. Just state
the problem, inform other people of it, contact CCS support, hope that
it's fixed, etc. It's another thing to basically abuse the good will of
the manufacturer who provides the forum, to rag on and on, endlessly,
in whining posts, day after day about the same topic.
I mean, if the compiler doesn't suit you, then go to Sourceboost.
Or go to Hi-Tech. A certain type of person will only be comfortable
with the Hi-Tech compiler or the C18 compiler. It's pointless to sit
and whine about CCS, if your personality is really a match with another
compiler. |
|
|
Dinesh
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 22
Location: UK
|
| V4.xx Workarounds! |
| Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 8:01 pm |
|
|
This is an excellent forum with wealth of experience and information.
Users or beta testers need to know the state of problems and more to the point workarounds bugs/limitations.
I am using V4.xxx in my current project and had/continue to have good and bad experience like many of you.
RTOS works great for me along with interrupt driven serial communication. I had bad experience with pointers/arguments at times � but on debugging software, you just have to use alternate methods that the compiler allows.
My clients don�t want to know my problems. They just want deliverables. Delays are costly.
Documentations of limitations/fixes should be shipped with every new release. That way I feel my subscription is worth something. One liner like �More IDE issues have been delt with� is fine for general web publication but it doesn�t provide any me with any information.
The IDE/Complier is work in progress. I don�t like the wasteful use of menus and it doesn�t really affect my work but I still prefer it to the old. The old IDE allowed better printing of source code. The V4.xxx will only allow portrait regardless of selection. I can�t use my printer to print landscape in duplex with �Flip Pages Up� option so that bounded print opens to be effective A3 page.
Editing code with condense/expand feature has been very helpful. It would be even better if �intellisense� is implemented.
Ideal would be an inclusion of a test source code to verify every aspect complier/linker operation. This could be based on rich PIC like 18F6722 prototype board/s that checks all aspects of the IDE/Complier/Linker i.e. CCS c implementation. This can then be the test bench to identify what is working or not working after any release and bug feedback from those of us willing to carry out tests would be quicker.
_________________
W2k sp4 512MB (Motherboard:ASUS A7S8X) |
|
|
Martin Berriman
Joined: 08 Dec 2005
Posts: 66
Location: UK
|
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:14 am |
|
|
| CCS wrote: | | Posts containing technical issues or bugs that have been resolved in compiler releases have been removed from the forum. Please submit technical issues directly to CCS at [email protected]. |
Ok, that sounds reasonable. Unfortunately the problems described with the linker are not yet completely resolved so it looks as if you are a bit premature.
| PCM programmer wrote: | | I don't think it was removed. I think it's all there. I clicked on the link of the alleged missing topic this morning and it's there, with all eight of dozen of Mr. Berriman's posts. |
Err...Well when I click on it it simply tells me: "The topic or post you requested does not exist".
| PCM programmer wrote: | We all know that vs. 4 is going to be beta for quite a while.
Ttelmah gives regular reports on this and he doesn't mince any words.
I don't see the point in using CCS's forum to do "primal screams"
over and over again -- just use 3.249 until 4.x is ready. Or use 4.x
but be aware of the limitations. We all basically know this.
As far as CCS being bad, they just gave away the whole PCB compiler
(vs. 3.249) for free with MPLAB. Now I have the whole suite for 3.249:
PCM and PCH, which I bought, plus PCB. |
I actually think my posts are quite measured and definitely not 'primal screams'. I have purchased a product that does not work as described which I think is unfair. Unfortunately I have not managed to get my money back and therefore I am left waiting for things to improve. I specifically bought maintenance to get use of the linker features advertised in version 4 therefore your suggestion for me to just put up with version 3 is not helpful.
I do not actually think that CCS is bad - I have used version 3 of the compiler for over a year and been generally very happy with it. I do however think that CCS support could improve their feedback. When I receive an email saying that they have received my bug report but it has not been assigned to anyone and has not been given a priority and then hear nothing further I become frustrated as I imagine do others.
| PCM programmer wrote: | I don't think any censorship took place. The thread is still there.
The 2nd thing is, it's one thing to complain about a problem. Just state
the problem, inform other people of it, contact CCS support, hope that
it's fixed, etc. It's another thing to basically abuse the good will of
the manufacturer who provides the forum, to rag on and on, endlessly,
in whining posts, day after day about the same topic.
I mean, if the compiler doesn't suit you, then go to Sourceboost.
Or go to Hi-Tech. A certain type of person will only be comfortable
with the Hi-Tech compiler or the C18 compiler. It's pointless to sit
and whine about CCS, if your personality is really a match with another
compiler. |
Personally I think that if there had been more comments on this forum about the true state of version 4 then I would not have gone ahead and purchased at that time - I did check the forum and no one had mentioned the fact that the linker did not work; most of the grumbles were about the IDE which I rarely use. It therefore seems useful to keep people updated on the progress as each release is made available. If this is seen as whining then that is unfortunate.
As it happens, I have recently been contacted by Darren Rook and having supplied him with example files showing the problems, I am happy in the knowledge that someone at CCS is actually interested in the problems I have found and is actively investigating them - well done Darren  |
|
|
Konrad
Joined: 15 Sep 2003
Posts: 34
|
| ICD broken in version 022 |
| Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:07 pm |
|
|
I bought a years maintenance in anticipation of DSPic support.
I have been a user of v3 since it was released. I knew that when v4 was released, the compiler may be 6 months before being stable. I have been suprised however at the number of problems with v4 even before they try to support the much more complex 24, 30 and 33 devices.
As a straight forwad compiler, v4 compares favourably with v3.
BUT CCS have sold v4, including the IDE way before it is ready.
I used to use th CCS IDE, especially the debugger, in conjunction with MPLAB, but as MPLAB has improved version by version, I now rarely use CCS.
Of the critisism here I hear little mention of the ICD. The real selling point of their own IDE should be more integrated debugging. The ICD functionality has varied drastically with each release of v4. In the previous issue v022 it was completely broken, but is now fixed in version v023.
OK the IDE may not be the most important aspect of a compiler BUT it costs exra. |
|
|
kender
Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Posts: 768
Location: Silicon Valley
|
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 2:58 pm |
|
|
| CCS wrote: | | Posts containing technical issues or bugs that have been resolved in compiler releases have been removed from the forum. Please submit technical issues directly to CCS at [email protected]. |
IMHO, it would be more technical and professional to edit those posts and add a note to them saying that the issue has been fixed in a certain version rather than deleting the posts altogether. |
|
|
PCM programmer
Joined: 06 Sep 2003
Posts: 21708
|
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:12 pm |
|
|
I noticed CCS just came out with a new version:
| Quote: | | 4.024 The IDE now includes an option to use classic menus instead of the new ribbons |
I don't use the IDE version but for everybody who was upset about
the ribbon menus, maybe this new version will help. |
|
|
Ttelmah
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:57 pm |
|
|
The newest versions of V4, at last seem to have addressmod working!. Tried a couple of tests, and it seems to operate both for read and write.
Best Wishes |
|
|
PCM programmer
Joined: 06 Sep 2003
Posts: 21708
|
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:08 pm |
|
|
Have you been able to get 'rom' pointers to work ? I tried testing it
for a few minutes and couldn't get it to work. I just got blank strings
displayed. It doesn't look like the proper ASM code is generated.
Then I tried to get the 'PASS_STRINGS=IN_RAM' feature to work.
I tried to print out the contents of a two dimensional array of text
strings. But it doesn't work properly if the array index is a variable.
Of course, that's how you'd want to use it. It truncates the strings
to only 6 characters and puts a 'black rectangle' character at the end.
So I gave up on that. This was with PCH vs. 4.024, and CCS4 mode
enabled. |
|
|
Ttelmah
Guest
|
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:40 pm |
|
|
| PCM programmer wrote: | Have you been able to get 'rom' pointers to work ? I tried testing it
for a few minutes and couldn't get it to work. I just got blank strings
displayed. It doesn't look like the proper ASM code is generated.
Then I tried to get the 'PASS_STRINGS=IN_RAM' feature to work.
I tried to print out the contents of a two dimensional array of text
strings. But it doesn't work properly if the array index is a variable.
Of course, that's how you'd want to use it. It truncates the strings
to only 6 characters and puts a 'black rectangle' character at the end.
So I gave up on that. This was with PCH vs. 4.024, and CCS4 mode
enabled. |
No.
I have half a dozen test programs, that I have been trying. The first covers twenty or thirty 'normal' compiler parts, that work in 3.249. These seem largely to now work!. Then I had the addressmod one, which (given it worked in 3.249), was my 'next' test. Then I have a couple that use things like pointers to ROM. A couple of things do work (variable length strings for example), but ROM pointers don't yet seem to work yet. Pointers to functions seem to have stayed about where they were for the last few versions, working if you manually allocate, but not if you try to automatically initialise an array.
This is the first version I have seen, where just about everything that worked in 3.249, does work, and some newer parts are starting to work in places...
Best Wishes |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in
