This, of course, says nothing about the simulator and other features of the compiler, depending on what features it purports to provide.
just a note: the simulator is not a feature of the compiler, it may be part of the toolset

Then, of course, I'd have to examine the debugger and the simulator, if there is one.
this is where I think I'm the realist, I would not even consider the 'added parts' of the IDE. No compiler maker has a good editor, No compiler maker has a good simulator, No compiler maker has a good emulator, so I buy a good editor from an editor maker (CodeWright) an ICE from and ICE maker (various), use the debugger from the manufacturer for JTAG equipped chips (SILabs). By the way, here is another example of my reason to have several apps open at the same time, which you argued as 'not necessary' in another post.

If they want me to pay for a simulator, then it has to simulate the parts I want to use. I'm certainly not going to pay for one I can't use or won't because of lack of device support.
The simulators included with the compiler toolsets are all (in my opinion) severely lacking, so were I to need one I would buy one from a simulator specialist. It is unfortunate that the IDEiots have forced so many companies to go outside their expertise to make their products sellable.

After all, I believe that all these "RESET" problems are really power supply issues, among other things, hence, I can't get to the bottom of that if I completely ignore 805x.
that statement has no place in this thread

Erik

to avoid flack:
An IDEiot is not someone that uses an IDE, if it works for you, go ahead. It is someone that is incapable of doing anything if it is not included in the IDE and refuses to go outside the IDE even if that will be better.