This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

MSP432E401Y: What are the main benefits of transitioning from using Code Composer Studio 10.1 to 12.5

Part Number: MSP432E401Y

We are currently using Code Composer Studio 10.1 with the Simplelink SDK (TIRTOS) using the TI v20.2.1.LTS compiler.  Would there be any highly significant benefits in transitioning to Code Composer Studio 12.5?  We would be particularly interested in 

1/ Improvements to use of memory (flash and ram) on the target device.  We are running low.

2/ Improvements to debugging experience

3/ General performance improvements of the IDE

  • Hi Paul,

      Please refer to the CCS release note on what is changed in details between versions. https://software-dl.ti.com/ccs/esd/CCSv12/CCS_12_5_0/exports/CCS_12.5.0_ReleaseNotes.htm

    1/ Improvements to use of memory (flash and ram) on the target device.  We are running low.

    2/ Improvements to debugging experience

    3/ General performance improvements of the IDE

    Improvements on the memory footprint will depend on the compiler version you use, not CCS. CCS is just an IDE. You can update your CCS10 version to use any compiler version. 

    I have both CC10 and CCS12 installed on my computer. For my general daily use, I don't really any noticeable difference in terms of debugging experience between the two versions. 

  • Hi Charles:

    Your response was helpful.  I could have been more clear about distinguishing the compiler from the IDE in my question.  When CCS in installed, it comes bundled with a compiler (presumably the latest release of the compiler available when the CCS package is built), and that is what we have always gone with.  We have never installed the compiler separately.  I knew that could be done, but it didn't occur to me to do it until reading your response.  In my question, I had indicated that we are using the LLVM compiler which was not what I intended.   We are using the TI compiler, and I edited my initial post above to reflect that.

    Your response gave me the idea to fetch the latest compiler TI v20.2.7.LTS and install that.  This did not result in any significant difference of the flash memory footprint (0.1% less). Just wanted to post this in case others were to find it helpful.  At first I thought there was a little over a 1% difference before I realized that my configurations were not exactly the same.  So again, I am here editing my post.

    So the conclusion is that we are going to stick with CCS 10.1 and TI v20.2.1.LTS.