The reason one would want to undertake such a task is not so much to beat the vendor out of his possible sale. After all, when all is said and done, it's still not going to produce an unlimited version of the product, comparable in any way to the commercially acquired version.

Further, if the "evaluation" version were kept up-to-date, such that one could, in fact, use it as a justification for procurement of the commercial version, particularly in the context of comparison with competing products, for a specific purpose, it would be really unnecessary to consider such an option as what I proposed.

For a programmer determined to use HLL to program MCU's like the 805x, it's unlikely he/she will even want to use such a tool, aside from evaluating it, against its competitors. If one is going to use a given tool for serious work, it's unlikely he/she will want to go through life wondering whether the right product was chosen. I would think that a vendor, no matter which one, would wish to have a customer make the right choice rather than an underinformed one.

I haven't attempted to follow the path that I described, (A) because I'm not a believer in using HLL to program MCU's, and (B) because I don't want to force my clients to buy the tool set that I've chosen just to be able to maintain my work, when it's a costly one. While the KEIL, IAR, Tasking, or whatever, compiler might be justifiable for me, my clients probably would dislike having to buy it just to maintain my work. I don't want them to be forced to have me do it. I don't mind if they do, but I don't think they should be left without options. What's more, it's a lot of work, and I'd rather spend my time working on things I like rather than whittling on someone else's product.

RE