If you go back to http://www.8052.com/forum/read/166228 you'll find my remark that having a single compiler that supports multiple cores is "flexible" and, I believe, SDCC is more so than KEIL. It's not an indictment of 'C' or of KEIL, but a simple remark in response to Erik's comment that it's irrelevant (not that it's clear what he intends to say).

However, there have been many, Many, MANY queries about "why doesn't this work" when it works with a different compiler. That was the main thrust of my comments. If one has a compiler that supports multiple MCU's, it's likely it will be easier than using different compilers for each MCU one uses, simply because one gradually learns the ins and outs of a given tool.

Quite frankly, I don't care what your personal preferences are. You're entitled to make your own choices.

What I'd want to do is to avoid switching software vendors, because then I have to learn and remember a long list of bugs for each. While few software tools are totally bug-free, remembering which tool has wich bugs is tedious. Software is supposed to enhance productivity, and not get in the way.

I enjoyed the free assemblers that Motorola published for their various MCU's back in the late '80's, simply because they all seemed to adhere to the same basic rules, allowed me to use what I learned while using the 6801 assembler with the 64HC05's some years later, and adhered to the same conventions as I'd learned with the 6809.

I doubt it's quite so simple moving from one core to another under SDCC, but I'd guess it's at least somewhat easier than moving from KEIL to SDCC. There are lots of changes required!

RE