On 3/2/11 4:49 AM, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
>> I'm trying to guage the relative merrits of the SDCC for a new project
>> involving the Texas Instruments CC1110. We have a choice between
>> building with the SDCC or tools from IAR systems (iar.com). In some ways
>> the SDCC seems compelling; low cost, easy to pick up and use, open
>> source, can run on linux, previous team experience.
> Do not underestimate the free (or, if you prefer OSI terminology, "open
> source") aspect. There is a company named HITECH, making a compiler
> named HITECH-C. They made a good compiler. It generated more compact
> code than sdcc. I hope we will get even with them in sdcc 3.1.0, but so
> far their last release still generates smaller code than sdcc for most
> functions. HITECH-C had various backends.
> Then HITECH was bought by Microchip Ltd and immidiately discontinued
> support for all non-Microchip targets. They even no longer sell the old
> There's no way you can get more licenses, get a bug fixed or a feature
> into that compiler any more. That's something that can't happen with
> sdcc (even if you want some obscure feature no sdcc developer is
> interested in, you could still pay someone to implement it).
Yep, I remember the HITECH-C debacle all too well.
And the "not supported by the manufacturer" point is very often
misunderstood as well. I've gotten far better support from the SDCC
developers than I EVER have from a commercial software vendor.
Port Charlotte, FL