CCS C 5.xxx

[nullos]

This thread is for CCS 5.xxx

modified by Metal

[duende_azul]

Here:

[nullos]

Many thanks ! Works perfect with old licence files ! :-)

[duende_azul]

Old Keygen work fine.

[xpress_embedo]

If someone doesn't have the old license files then they can be download the files from the attached file.
Just copy and paste in the default installation directory.

[Magnox]

Folks, check the posts in the CCS 4 thread if you need keys. I know that alichan's link in post #71 is still working.

http://www.sonsivri.to/forum/index.php?topic=33138.msg147072#msg147072

Probably others are too.

[duende_azul]

New version: 5.008

[ppa88]

See attachment to download CCS 5

[gmua]

An alternative link will be really helpful.

For those having problems with mega.co.nz, here's another alternative.

Thanks duende_azul...

[duende_azul]

Version 5.009.  

(see attach file)

It seems that CCS is going to take a daily version.  

[mcr]

Version 5.009. 

https://mega.co.nz/#!CUgSCRbK!Yp2wKXIx6xvgqsAxxwuEIFxr9gMPj1FQ3qRicJHfrhg

It seems that CCS is going to take a daily version. 

It wouldn't be CCS otherwise.

[metal]

you will be attacked by CCS lovers, be careful

[gan_canny]

The IDE in 5.009 is a bit quirky......issues with resizing and getting bottom left/right corners win7 64 pro....maybe fixed in 5.010

[duende_azul]

Versión 5.010

  

[metal]

The IDE in 5.009 is a bit quirky......issues with resizing and getting bottom left/right corners win7 64 pro....maybe fixed in 5.010

The IDE has been crap since day 0, delphi components they are using are very bad. I remember they use TMS components which cause this behavior.. add to it bad implementation..

[Old_but_Alive]

@metal,

apart from that you like it  - right ? 

[mcr]

I just use 12,16 and 18  PICs but want to switch to 24s.

Is it any good for this line of products?

Thanks.


And as stated before:
It wouldn't be CCS if they don't make daily updates.

[metal]

@metal,

apart from that you like it  - right ? 

TBH, I don't even use it :- )
sometimes I have to use it to compile existing codes by others.

[gan_canny]

Yes it works with the 24's.
Some issues reported with the CCS debug hardware (ex. ICD-U64) with clock speed above 100mhz. Some 24's can run at 140 Mhz. The ICD-U64 can upload( program) code that runs at 140Mhz it just can't run the same code in debug mode (many  PIC's have have debug capabilities...peek at registers display ram etc).
An aside
Some are adverse to CCS rapid versioning.
 Craftsmen and women don't blame their tools. They do choose the tools for the job. Many like their tools sharpened daily others like them blunt so they don't get cut.
CCS sharpens the tools weekly if not daily. Anyway some would rather accept imperfect compilers rather than wait months or years for a new version hoping the delay will lead to better results.  Its always a choice.

[mcr]

That's good to hear gan_canny.

I think I'll migrate one PIC18F4431 PPWM project to a PIC24FJ16MC101.  I've seen the device supported and looks like it does have a MC101 and MC102.

Compiled some old code with the setup_power_pwm and some #defines were modified for the PIC18F4431 (complementary or something).

I don't use ICD-U64 or CCS IDE, I use PICKIT3 and MPLAB; haven't gotten more than 40 MHZ so this 100MHZ won't be a problem.


I agree with your statement, whether CCS has a bad compiler or not, we use it, so it must be good (at least for us).


Waiting for 6.000   

[localcrack]

Following macro not works on CCS 5.008

#define bit_toggle(var,bit) ((var&(1<<bit))!=0) ? (var &= ~(1<<bit)) : (var |= (1<<bit))

However it perfectly works on CCS 4.xxx

is anything is wrong ?

[hate]

I don't know why that doesn't work but you can use a simpler and faster macro for bit toggling like the one below:

Code:

#define bit_toggle(var, bit) (var^= (1<<bit))

[gan_canny]

Some when given tools still want to do their own tool making. Sometimes it's for portability reasons other times it's just being stubborn.
Now there is always the KISS ( Keep it simple stupid) method with bit_set and bit_clear or even  ( less of a KISS)  a bit structure and a byte overlayed by a union. Anyway a purist coder's ego will often cause them to use the least obvious way. ( Job insecurity perhaps).

[towlerg]

#define bit_toggle(var,bit) ((var&(1<<bit))!=0) ? (var &= ~(1<<bit)) : (var |= (1<<bit))

Seriously?

Hard to imaging why there are any C holdouts!

[metal]

mainly it is portability. bit_set and bit_clr are crap.
for bit_set
PORTx |= (1 << bit)
and bit_clr
PORTx &= ~(1 << bit)

in localcrack's case, it is keep it strictly stupid, been sailing in dark oceans since CCS 4.xxx, imagine... I am afraid he will now ask about XOR logic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or