A good compiler

[Flash Gordon]

Re: A good compiler

Harald van Dijk wrote, On 26/07/07 18:00:

jacob navia wrote:

>Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

>>[snips]
>>>
>>On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:54:31 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:
>>>
>>>It's blindingly obvious what his relationship is when you go to the
>>>lcc-win32 website to get the FREE download of the compiler and other
>>>tools.
>>>>
>>>It is defiantly NOT commercial but FREE software (if not open source)
>>"This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia. It's
>>free for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you have to
>>have to buy a licence."
>>>
>>You keep saying it is free, when he goes out of his way to say otherwise.
>>Since it's his product, I suspect I'll believe him, rather than you.

>It is free for non commercial use. What else do you want?
>>
>Cygwin is free for non commercial use. If you want commercial use
>you have to buy a license from redhat.

>
You are mistaken. Cygwin is free for both non-commercial and commercial use.

Unless they have changed the license since I investigated it a few years
back it depends on the type of commercial use. You cannot distribute a
closed source program linked against the Cygwin DLL without paying a
license fee.

Both Jacob and RedHat are allowed to make money from selling their
products of course.
--
Flash Gordon

[Mark McIntyre]

Re: A good compiler

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 12:40:57 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Ben Bacarisse
<ben.usenet@bsb .me.ukwrote:

>Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys .orgwrites:
>

>In article <lc2dnVV6_Y4Hnz rbRVnytAA@bt.co m>, Richard Heathfield
><rjh@see.sig.i nvalidwrites

>>>If they have a commercial interest in it,

>>
>No.... An interest (or bias) whether commercial or not.

>
>That is not practical. We cannot declare all our biases. Most will
>be unconscious biases anyway.

Sure, but there's a difference between a bias against K&R style
braces, or warm beer, and an undeclared financial interest in a
product you're recommending. I sincerely hope most people here can see
the difference.

>If I say "X is a great supplier of Y" I am obviously biased (I am
>offering not evidence or argument) but I think it makes a difference
>to the way one reads this bias if I then say "BTW, I get 10% of every
>new sale of X makes".

Quite

>If am obliged, as you would have me be, to add
>"BTW, I am an irrational devotee of the way X does things" I don't
>think readers get any more than they had already.

I don't think anyone is suggesting this. You /do/ realise the
relationship between JN and lcc-win32 I presume?
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

[Mark McIntyre]

Re: A good compiler

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:46:48 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.in validwrote:

>Chris Hills said:
>

>Incidentally I have no idea how good or bad lcc-win32 is. That is not
>what is being argued here. It is just being smeared by FOSS people

>
>No, it isn't. The criticism is not against lcc-win32 but against its
>promotion in a technical newsgroup by the one person who has most to
>gain from its widespread use. And it isn't just "FOSS people" who are
>making this criticism.
>
>Please check your facts before tarring all of Mr Navia's many critics
>with the same brush.

Here Here. Chris' comment above is outrageous.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

[Mark McIntyre]

Re: A good compiler

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:18:57 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<jacob@jacob.re mcomp.frwrote:

>Chris Hills wrote:

>In article <4beaa35eq7r6io 6tugnb74sgo6in0 1ii82@4ax.com>, Mark McIntyre
><markmcintyre@ spamcop.netwrit es

>>On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:15:31 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
>>Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.in validwrote:
>>>
>>>Malcolm McLean said:
>>>>>
>>>>I seem to spend hours putting Chinese hats on identifers and taking
>>>>them off again, just to get it to compile a simple window.
>>>>
>>>Why?
>>>
>>Thats a question you'd have to ask Microsoft. I played with the
>>"Express" versions a while back (I think I still have the CDs) and
>>fairly quickly decided it would be more fruitful to build a linux box
>>and install gcc (or for that matter, more fruitful to wallop myself
>>over the head with a rubber truncheon ...)

>>
>It is interesting that I know many who manage to use the MS Visual C++
>compilers for a lot of things yet the only solution to some is
>FOSS/Linux no matter what the question.

Perhaps you should learn to read sometime. It might assist you with
understanding what people say, so that you can avoid telling
outrageous lies and trying to stir up trouble.

>windows is from the evil empire Chris!

Take a quick guess as to what operating system I'm running Agent (paid
for) on, and what my normal compiler is on this, my main workstation.
Ah, heck,. here's a small hint even you idiots should be able to get;

Microsoft (R) 32-bit C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 12.00.8168 for
80x86
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corp 1984-1998. All rights reserved.

usage: cl [ option... ] filename... [ /link linkoption... ]

>Only pure linux will save us from the evil empire.

Yeah, right, and Elvis is alive and living in Slough.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

[Mark McIntyre]

Re: A good compiler

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:58:35 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<jacob@jacob.re mcomp.frwrote:

>Richard wrote:

>Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@s pamcop.netwrite s:
>>

>>On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:38:51 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
>><jacob@jacob. remcomp.frwrote :
>>>
>>> gdb is a pile of shit.
>>>
>>Hardly. gdb simply isn't a visual gui debugger. If you want that,
>>there are tools for linux.

>>
>Nearly all of which are rubbish. Eclipse might change that. DDD is a joke.

>
>I have used them all (kdevelop debugger, ddd, etc etc)

I notice you only mention free tools. Apparently you're happy to pay
for tools on Windows, but somehow won't examine the same marketplace
on Linux.

>and they all are
>just GUI front ends to gdb, presenting you with a SUBSET of the
>capabilities of gdb.

Whatddaya expect when you obtain free tools which are just frontends
for gdb?

>I never received even an acknowledgment that my fix was received.

Maybe you wrote them a mail similar to some of your posts here, and
they took an instant dislike to you.

Or maybe they read about you in CLC and decided to treat your code
with a pinch of salt?
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

[Ian Collins]

Re: A good compiler

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:18:57 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<jacob@jacob.re mcomp.frwrote:
>

>Only pure linux will save us from the evil empire.

>
Yeah, right, and Elvis is alive and living in Slough.

I thought it was Area 51.

--
Ian Collins.

[Ian Collins]

Re: A good compiler

jacob navia wrote:

>
Only pure linux will save us from the evil empire.
>

Other free operating systems (with better development environments) are
available.

--
Ian Collins.

[Default User]

Re: A good compiler

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:59:53 +0530, in comp.lang.c , santosh
<santosh.k83@gm ail.comwrote:

The C Standard explicitly permits implementations
to emit as many diagnostics as they deem fit, over and above what
are required by it.

>
Sure - but I suspect most people here would agree that any compiler
that emits diagnostics with valid code is screwed up.

Err, define "valid code" first.




Brian

[Denis Kasak]

Re: A good compiler

Chris Hills wrote:

In article <n5rmn4-p8q.ln1@spanky. localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjarnason@gma il.comwrites

>[snips]
>>
>On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:54:31 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:
>>

>>It's blindingly obvious what his relationship is when you go to the
>>lcc-win32 website to get the FREE download of the compiler and other
>>tools.
>>>
>>It is defiantly NOT commercial but FREE software (if not open source)

>>
>"This software is not freeware,

>
It is. It is just not FOSS

Apparently, you know better than the author.

--
Denis Kasak

[Shawn the Rock]

Re: A good compiler

hey,Ajinkya :
Probaly if you need a looks "good" IDE that VC++ 6 is a good choice
for you.But as my favorite, vim+gcc+gdb is pretty good even though I
have to using VC6 for work everyday.

Good luck!

regards
Shawn

[pete]

Re: A good compiler

Default User wrote:

>
Mark McIntyre wrote:
>

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:59:53 +0530, in comp.lang.c , santosh
<santosh.k83@gm ail.comwrote:

>

The C Standard explicitly permits implementations
to emit as many diagnostics as they deem fit, over and above what
are required by it.

Sure - but I suspect most people here would agree that any compiler
that emits diagnostics with valid code is screwed up.

>
Err, define "valid code" first.

My compiler emits some warnings for "valid code".

I get an "expression is constant" warning
for using a do{}while(0) macro.
I don't like that warning.

I get a warning about assignment with: if (a = 0)
That warning has been appropriate for me on occassion.

My compiler gives me a warning advocating the cast here:
byte = (char)(cond ? '0' : '1');
I don't like that warning.

--
pete

[Keith Thompson]

Re: A good compiler

Denis Kasak <denis.kasak|RE MOVEFORSPAM|@gm ail.comwrites:

Chris Hills wrote:

>In article <n5rmn4-p8q.ln1@spanky. localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason
><kbjarnason@gm ail.comwrites

>>[snips]
>>>
>>On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:54:31 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:
>>>
>>>It's blindingly obvious what his relationship is when you go to the
>>>lcc-win32 website to get the FREE download of the compiler and other
>>>tools.
>>>>
>>>It is defiantly NOT commercial but FREE software (if not open source)
>>>
>>"This software is not freeware,

>It is. It is just not FOSS

>
Apparently, you know better than the author.

This appears to be a disagreement over the meaning of the word
"freeware", not over the facts regarding lcc-win32. I suggest that it
is neither possible nor useful to settle it here.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Denis Kasak]

Re: A good compiler

Keith Thompson wrote:

Denis Kasak <denis.kasak|RE MOVEFORSPAM|@gm ail.comwrites:

>Chris Hills wrote:

>>In article <n5rmn4-p8q.ln1@spanky. localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason
>><kbjarnason@g mail.comwrites
>>>[snips]
>>>>
>>>On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:54:31 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:
>>>>
>>>>It's blindingly obvious what his relationship is when you go to the
>>>>lcc-win32 website to get the FREE download of the compiler and other
>>>>tools.
>>>>>
>>>>It is defiantly NOT commercial but FREE software (if not open source)
>>>"This software is not freeware,
>>It is. It is just not FOSS

>Apparently, you know better than the author.

>
This appears to be a disagreement over the meaning of the word
"freeware", not over the facts regarding lcc-win32. I suggest that it
is neither possible nor useful to settle it here.

Agreed. The whole thread has gone out of hand, I would dare say, to the
point of futility and beating a dead horse.

--
Denis Kasak

[Richard Bos]

Re: A good compiler

Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@s pamcop.netwrote :

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:18:57 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<jacob@jacob.re mcomp.frwrote:
>

Only pure linux will save us from the evil empire.

>
Yeah, right, and Elvis is alive and living in Slough.

All the more reason for the friendly bombs to fall.

Richard

[Richard Bos]

Re: A good compiler

jacob navia <jacob@jacob.re mcomp.frwrote:

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

"This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia. It's
free for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you have to have
to buy a licence."

>
Yes. And so what? It is free for non commercial use.

Then it's not free, is it? More to the point, then you _do_ have a
financial incentive in plugging it as much as possible, and all your
posts here advocating its use and its shiny! extensions are unsolicited
commercial posts. Knowing this, I am now seriously tempted to report you
to your ISP.

Richard