the major problem that is in the way of foss compilers being 'close to good as some of *costly* ones' is from what I heard (from other gnu compiler developers) cost of the optimisation algorithms.
Hero999, I agree with you 100%, I also opened the thread hoping to find link to foss app.
the thing that 'it does not embed in mplab' does not concearn me, mikroE ide is better them mplab, ccs ide is better then mplab, 'visual' testing I can do in ISIS and as for programming and debugging - I have mikroE easypic4 so I can debug directly from mikroC I had no chance of testing the boostC but I already purchased 2 compilers, getting the third one to do the same thing does not sound smart, and as colin already stated, mikroE has some nifty tools in the ide. Ĭomparing output of mikroC and ccs c for 16F877A, the mikroC code is better, the only thing is, I tend to *realy* dislike the part where *all* libraries are close source and to port ccs libraries to mikroC. I paid 110US$ for ccs c compiler and I can program only 12/16 pic's, for 18 family I have to 'upgrade' with another xyz$. I paid mikroC 99E and it works on all 12/16/18 pic's. Apart from closing source of all the libraries (still do not understand why) mikroE compilers are pretty darn good.
