Hi-Tech Software bought by Microchip - no more other compilers

Op Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:17:59 +0200 schreef MC  
<for.address.look@www.ai.uga.edu.slash.mc>:
> The Real Andy wrote:
>> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 22:01:49 +1000, "David L. Jones"
>
>> Its interesting this. Is microchip going to release the compiler free
>> of charge?
>
> They release the "demo" version of the compiler free, without a time  
> limit or (as I recall) any limits except that optimizations are turned  
> off.

That like a car dealer not allowing test drivers to go beyond first gear.   
It's a great way to ensure that people continue to have no idea about the  
quality of the product.

> Having optimizations turned off is pretty bad -- the code frequently  
> bank-switches to the memory bank it is already in, for instance.  So the  
> un-optimized compiler is good for learning C and testing algorithms, but  
> its output is rather bloated.

As is any compiler's unoptimized output.



-- 
Gemaakt met Opera's revolutionaire e-mailprogramma:  
http://www.opera.com/mail/

On Jul 8, 11:25=A0am, Dave Nadler <d...@nadler.com> wrote:

> We adapted CodeSourcery's G++ GCC-based offering, using
> Eclipse for development. If anyone's interested contact me;
> I'll finish the web page describing this Real Soon Now.

Oh no! :) Please don't do anything to encourage people to use
Microchip's parts!

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 19:32:25 +1000, The Real Andy wrote:

>>> Is somebody buying the rights to these products?
>>
>>Unlikely, as they would probably include common code that is part of the PIC 
>>compiler which Microchip want to keep for themselves.
>>
>>Dave.
> 
> Its interesting this. Is microchip going to release the compiler free
> of charge? Atmel uses gcc, so it must be getting some good market
> share on that aspect alone. I recently did some work on the AP7000
> running linux, and whilst I hate linux its clear that Atmel has done a
> lot of work to make it all free. Gcc is pretty good, can microchip
> beat it?

Microchip uses gcc for their higher-end products, but modifying gcc for
an 8-bit target isn't realistic.

I'm not expecting them to give away the Hi-Tech product for free.
Microchip's C18 compiler is $500; you can get a demo version, but it
disables some optimisations after 60 days, and you have to register to get
it (and provide offline contact details; OTOH, at least they don't require
your phone number, like Hi-Tech did for their free version).

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 07:05:45 -0700, larwe wrote:

> - PIC24/dsPIC is covered by Microchip C30 (gcc based). Free non-
> optimizing version.

Does anyone know what the deal is with the restrictions of C30?

It's derived from gcc, so they have to provide the complete source for any
derivative works. So either the restricted optimisations are performed by
a separate program, or they're only restricted in the pre-compiled binary
packages but not the source code, or they're making a dubious
interpretation of what constitues a derivative work.

nobody@nowhere.com writes:
> How good is the GNU compiler these days? I see the last updates were
> about 2002, and there is even a windoze build of it somewhere.

Where are you getting this info?  The last change to the H8/300 GCC
backend was June 4th.  Red Hat has been selling an H8/300 toolchain
(with varying levels of support) for as long as I can remember, and a
windows build has always been available.  How do I know?  I'm the one
responsible for the H8/300 within our group!  I even recall doing my
first H8/300 to DJGPP port in 1992...

(as for the PIC compiler, the PIC24 Microchip compiler *is* gcc, and
is available - with sources - free of charge already)

Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> writes:
> Does anyone know what the deal is with the restrictions of C30?

If you don't have a valid license, it forces you to -O0.

> It's derived from gcc, so they have to provide the complete source
> for any derivative works. So either the restricted optimisations are
> performed by a separate program, or they're only restricted in the
> pre-compiled binary packages but not the source code, or they're
> making a dubious interpretation of what constitues a derivative
> work.

Get the source code from their web site, comment out that code (a
single #define controls it), and rebuild.  It just works, and has all
the optimizations enabled that way.

However, by doing that, you no longer have a license to use their
libraries.

On Jul 8, 12:07=A0pm, Nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> it (and provide offline contact details; OTOH, at least they don't requir=
e
> your phone number, like Hi-Tech did for their free version).

Oddly enough when faced with this question I encounter a mental block
that turns my number into 617-861-3962.

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:48:03 +0200, Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote:

>>> Its interesting this. Is microchip going to release the compiler free
>>> of charge?
>>
>> They release the "demo" version of the compiler free, without a time  
>> limit or (as I recall) any limits except that optimizations are turned  
>> off.
> 
> That like a car dealer not allowing test drivers to go beyond first gear.   
> It's a great way to ensure that people continue to have no idea about the  
> quality of the product.

The approach used with C18 is that some optimisations are disabled after
60 days. This allows it to be used both as a time-limited evaluation copy
of the complete product and as a feature-limited freeware version.

The problem here is that it's bound to involve some kind of malware
behaviour, otherwise the user could just re-install it every 60 days.

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:04:56 -0700, larwe wrote:

>> it (and provide offline contact details; OTOH, at least they don't require
>> your phone number, like Hi-Tech did for their free version).
> 
> Oddly enough when faced with this question I encounter a mental block
> that turns my number into 617-861-3962.

It's possible that providing false information could count as
"obtaining goods or services dishonestly"[1].

[1] Formerly known as "obtaining goods or services by deception"; it was
changed because it didn't apply when the entire process is automated, as
it isn't possible to "deceive" a computer.

On Jul 8, 2:50=A0pm, Nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:

> > Oddly enough when faced with this question I encounter a mental block
> > that turns my number into 617-861-3962.
>
> It's possible that providing false information could count as
> "obtaining goods or services dishonestly"[1].

No leg to stand on - I honestly don't want to give them my contact
details so they can harass me. This issue has, in any case, been
litigated and killed aeons ago in cases revolving around people who
enter inaccurate profile information for (e.g.) free email services.