Which PIC compiler is better: HiTech, IAR or CCS ?

[luben111]

CCS and Hi@Tech

Hello,

I'm working from long time with Hi@Tech compiler for PIC and I believed that it's near perfection. Unfortunately I saw with my eyes how a project that fits in PIC12C509, wasn't able to be done in Hi@tech - the best appraoch brings ~100 bytes bigger ROM memory then with CCS made project. And there is almost no one free place in the ROM, so every byte is important for me.

Can you share your experience - which compiler makes the best code - Hi@Tech, IA@R or CCS? I'm talking about 12C509 chip - maybe for other chips Hi@Tech could be the best one...

regards
Luben

 

[Zenner]

Re: CCS and Hi@Tech

If every byte is important and you pic have small rom/ram space, I think assembler is better.

 

[luben111]

Re: CCS and Hi@Tech

Maybe I wasn't very deteailed:

I had to remake a project made on CCS, that fits in 12C509 (20 bytes ROM free).

HiTech produced ~120 bytes ROM bigger code.

I saw the assembler listing code of CCS project - really no sense to write everything on assembler, because it looks perfect.

But the same is with HiTech - looking the listing you don't see any wrong or unoptimized places.

Somehow CCS optimizes more then HiTech....

 

[benradu]

Re: CCS and Hi@Tech

I am surprised to hear this. I had a project made with CCS on 16c74 and it was around 3600 words. I ported on hi-tech and it was aprox 300 words less.
Are you sure you compile with all optimizations on?

 

[luben111]

Re: CCS and Hi@Tech

Hello,

I know what you mean - I made many, many projects with HiTech and I always believed that they are perfect.

In this case I have to add 2-3 rows C code to one ready project. The project is made on CCS and has only 20 bytes ROM free. I talk to the people and promised to them that with moving to HiTch I expect compression at least from 30-50 bytes.

I have to confess now that HiTch doesn't generate more optimesed code for 12C509 - the best approcimation is ~100 bytes more then the code from CCS! Of course I continue playing with banks and variable and "fastcall"... The problem is that CCS generates this code with default settings.

I'm talking about the latest CCS compiler and latest HiTech one.

regards
Luben