PBP for dsPIC 16bit??

[Demon]

Simple answer - no. Programmers do not generate INHX32 files - that is the job of the compiler.
...

Ok, my mistake.

If this is from 18F2550.INC in the PBP folder:

...
LIST p = 18F2550, r = dec, w = -311, w = -230, f = inhx32
...

Then it will be used by compiler right?
(Mecanique Studio Plus, MPLAB or whatever alternatives if there are any)

So, wouldn't you still end up with an INHX32 hex file anyways?

[Demon]

(just had a thought)

Or is it more an issue of how the commands are structured within the hex file?

The layout is compatible, but the commands are not.

[cncmachineguy]

That is the "file format" same as pdf, doc,pbp,xls,dwg and so on.

But the content will not be correct. At best you will get an eight bit program to run on a 16 or 32 bit processor. This will not be too good. For instance, when we declare a WORD variable, the compiler generates code to make the uP act on the WORD in multiple BYTES. The 16 bit uP would not need the extra overhead of manuiplating the BYTES since it can handle WORDS. But the program would have it anyway since it was compiled for an eight bit uP.

[Archangel]

That is the "file format" same as pdf, doc,pbp,xls,dwg and so on.

But the content will not be correct. At best you will get an eight bit program to run on a 16 or 32 bit processor. This will not be too good. For instance, when we declare a WORD variable, the compiler generates code to make the uP act on the WORD in multiple BYTES. The 16 bit uP would not need the extra overhead of manuiplating the BYTES since it can handle WORDS. But the program would have it anyway since it was compiled for an eight bit uP.

PBP could very well have a separate compiler switch like it does for longs to switch up to 16 bit compiler, yeah it would probably be a a complete rewrite from the code in an 8 bit compiler but the interface could remain the same and use the same syntax. Look at how similar "C" compilers are for each series. All said I think it would be Do able, however; I think the upgrade price would be steep, I think it would HAVE to be. My thoughts are it would be worth it so as not to need retraining in " C ".

[mister_e]

You can start right now with assembler or C... it's free (with some limitations).

If you already mess with 10,16,18 series, then you'll discover PIC24, DsPIC, PIC32 assembler is far different... not to mention the extra features and architecture.

Download a datasheet... then oh surprise, you also need to download the family common datasheet for x specific section of the internal peripherals.

Yes it is a complete rewrite, no it's not simple... and no you don't need to stick to C, there's already Basic compilers available.

On the long run, you may find it handy to know C.

[rmteo]

.....On the long run, you may find it handy to know C.

If you want to leverage your efforts into commercial/professional activities, then C/C++ is the way to go. It dominates the market at 84% (ASM is the next highest with 5%) with all other languages making up the balance of 11% - BASIC (all dialects, not just PBP) accounts for 1% of total usage.

[mister_e]

It's been said countless time in here, compilers are just tools. You want to have more than one screwdriver in your kit.

I say, if you can, learn them all

Keep programming fun, enjoy what you do..life's too short.

[harryweb]

I would like to program PIC24, because they have 4 UART ! Need Them because SERIN(OUT)2 are not good for my apps

Regards