PBP for dsPIC 16bit??

[HenrikOlsson]

Short answer: No.
PBP works with PIC10, 12, 16 and 18 "only".
I'd probably take a look at MikroElectronikas mikroBASIC PRO for dsPIC or move over to the dark side....

[Acetronics2]

Hi,

The subject was discussed some times ago ...

looked Melabs had no real project for 16 bits ...

May be Charles Leo could make a little " update " about the future ...

BTW CCS C compiler also is a possibility ( take care to recent versions > 4.110 : somewhat buggy ...)

Alain

[rmteo]

And why would 16-bit PICs be interesting? A PIC16 is rated at 5MIPs and the fastest PIC18s are rated 16MIPs (typically 10MIPs). The 16-bit PIC24/dsPIC are rated from 16-40MIPs. However, MIPs (million-instructions/second) are very misleading and do not not take into account things like instruction and data sizes. So how, for example, does a 10MIPs PIC18F97J60 compare to a 16MIPs PIC24FJ64GA004 - is the PIC24FJ 1.6x faster? In real world testing and benchmarking, it is more like 13-23x. Comparing PIC32s which are rated at 40-80MIPs, the disparity gets even larger. Instead of 4-8x that of a PIC18, it can be as much 160x. Take a look at the CoreMark figures (last column) in the table below.

[Acetronics2]

(post removed)

[rmteo]

(post removed)

[Acetronics2]

(post removed)

[rmteo]

(post removed)

[Demon]

...
looked Melabs had no real project for 16 bits
...

I wouldn't make a statement like that (EDIT: Until Microchip closes the production line or issues a formal statement).

http://www.microchip.com/en_US/family/16bit/index.html

Microchip’s 16-bit, PIC24 MCUs and dsPIC® Digital Signal Controllers provide designers with an easy upgrade path from 8-bit PIC® microcontrollers and a cost effective option to 32-bit MCUs. The broad product line includes everything from eXtreme Low Power microcontrollers to high performance digital signal controllers. Combined with hardware and free software these 16-bit products make the design of Control, mTouch™ Sensing, Graphics, Connectivity, Digital Power Conversion, Smart Sensing and Motor Control solutions easy to implement.

[rmteo]

...So, is it possible that finding a programmer that generates INHX32 hex files is the only hurdle to using PIC Basic Pro on dsPIC devices?

Simple answer - no. Programmers do not generate INHX32 files - that is the job of the compiler. The files required by a PIC12/16/18 is very different from that of a dsPIC. While it may be possible to take a PIC12/16/18 HEX file and burn it into a dsPIC, it will not do what you expect it to.

[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 ".

[Demon]

...
Is it possible??i mean all the command listed in the PBP green book can be used for dsPIC??
...

Short answer: No.
PBP works with PIC10, 12, 16 and 18 "only".
....

Why not? I've never used or seen a DSpic but thought this an interesting subject so I did some googling:

dsPIC30 is a 16bit mcu:
http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/e...Doc/70102K.pdf

(p. 62)
The format supported is the Intel® HEX 32 Format (INHX32).

PIC 24F are also 16bit mcu:
http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/e...tes/91025a.pdf

(p. 2)

The formats supported are the Intel HEX Format (INHX8M), Intel Split HEX Format (INHX8S), and the Intel HEX 32 Format (INHX32).

It would seem it's just a matter of using a programmer that generates INHX32 hex files. I have no clue which format is generated by my MeLabs U2 programmer. The most I could find was:

The melabs programmer software is compatible with the standard Microchip HEX format files.

INHX8M? INHX8S? INHX32?


So, is it possible that finding a programmer that generates INHX32 hex files is the only hurdle to using PIC Basic Pro on dsPIC devices?


Or am I totally not seeing something?



EDIT: This is from 18F2550.INC in PBP folder:

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

So a PIC 18F2550 is apparently programmed in INHX32 format, why couldn't a dsPIC?