A good compiler

[Chris Hills]

Re: A good compiler

In article <f84g66$v5p$1@a ioe.org>, Carramba <carramba@examp le.com>
writes

>Chris Hills skrev:

>In article <1185129227.686 670.168840@m37g 2000prh.googleg roups.com>,
>>Ajinkya <kaleajinkya@gm ail.comwrites

>>Can anyone suggest me a good compiler for(c/cpp) for windows?
>>I tried dev cpp but its debugging facility is very poor.

> It depends what you want to do.
> The obvious choice is the free MS Visual C++ 2005 express which is
>>on free download and is the easiest place to start with windows
>>development .

>
>This is so long from obvious as it can get...

There is no point arguing with FOSS Devotees. They can't see reality.

>why not try really free development tool like eclipse

It's not free.... it has a license (and many conditions) as well.

and with CDT you have c/c++ for windows there is simple installer at
>http://cdt-windows.sourceforge.net/

The OS and all the libraries are made by MS. They do a free compiler
to work with them Why wouldn't you use it?

It is like saying if you want to work on Gnome on Linux not to use GCC.

Though technically GCC is old technology compared to the MS Visual
tools.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys. org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Chris Hills]

Re: A good compiler

In article <4beaa35eq7r6io 6tugnb74sgo6in0 1ii82@4ax.com>, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@s pamcop.netwrite s

>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.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys. org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Keith Thompson]

Re: A good compiler

rlb@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) writes:

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

[...]

>o It is a C compiler, so it will not put stdafx stuff automatically,

^
not
HTH.
>
It is a navia-Cish compiler, not a C compiler.

[...]

My understanding is that it conforms to C90 (or is it C95?) if you
invoke it with the "-ansic" option. I have no idea how good its
conformance is.

It also has an option that causes it to partially conform to C99, but
there are some features missing.

It provides a number of non-conforming extensions by default, but
that's fairly typical of C compilers. (The author's emphasis on those
extensions often obscures that point.)

--
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"

[Chris Hills]

Re: A good compiler

In article <46a6ecae.65673 9671@news.xs4al l.nl>, Richard Bos
<rlb@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nlwr ites

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

>Ajinkya wrote:

Can anyone suggest me a good compiler for(c/cpp) for windows?
I tried dev cpp but its debugging facility is very poor.
>

>>
>Do not use lcc-win32.

>
>This is fantastic advice.
>

>It has several drawbacks:

>

>o It is a C compiler, so it will not put stdafx stuff automatically,

^
not
>HTH.
>
>It is a navia-Cish compiler, not a C compiler.

Just like GCC is a C-like compiler. NOT a C compiler

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys. org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: A good compiler

Chris Hills said:

<snip>

Just like GCC is a C-like compiler. NOT a C compiler

How so? I put C in, and object code comes out. It walks like a C
compiler, swims like a C compiler, and quacks like a C compiler.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[jacob navia]

Re: A good compiler

Chris Hills wrote:

In article <4beaa35eq7r6io 6tugnb74sgo6in0 1ii82@4ax.com>, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@s pamcop.netwrite s

>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.
>

Because...
windows is from the evil empire Chris!

Only pure linux will save us from the evil empire.

[jacob navia]

Re: A good compiler

Richard Tobin wrote:

In article <1s0da3pj8r9b80 7fb806ckloh551l 5ftf5@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@s pamcop.netwrote :
>

>>Do not use lcc-win32.
>>>
>>It has several drawbacks:

>

>Amongst which is that its author feels happy to covertly advertise it
>in CLC, without disclosing his relationship.

>
I stopped pointing out errors in the declaration of main(), because I
was confident someone else would do it anyway. Perhaps Jacob feels
that he doesn't need to make any disclaimers, for the same reason.
>
-- Richard
>

Exactly

:-)

[Ian Collins]

Re: A good compiler

Chris Hills wrote:

As usual there is a lot of equivocation and splitting of hares.

I hope they were humanely killed first...

--
Ian Collins.

[Chris Hills]

Re: A good compiler

In article <lc2dnVR6_Y55nz rbRVnytAA@bt.co m>, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@see.sig.in validwrites

>Chris Hills said:
>
><snip>
>

>Just like GCC is a C-like compiler. NOT a C compiler

>
>How so? I put C in, and object code comes out. It walks like a C
>compiler, swims like a C compiler, and quacks like a C compiler.

So it is fully C99 compliant?

It is no more compliant than all the other "c-like" compilers that get
slated here for having extensions and omissions to C99. Gcc is no more
a C compiler than lcc-win32 is. You can't have it both ways.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys. org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Chris Hills]

Re: A good compiler

In article <5gohucF3f5k47U 5@mid.individua l.net>, Ian Collins
<ian-news@hotmail.co mwrites

>Chris Hills wrote:

>As usual there is a lot of equivocation and splitting of hares.

>
>I hope they were humanely killed first...
>

Jugged of course... never kill a sober hare
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys. org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Richard]

Re: A good compiler

user923005 <dcorbit@connx. comwrites:

On Jul 24, 9:46 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.i nvalidwrote:

>Frodo Baggins said:
>>
><snip>
>>

Please don't flame me, but what's wrong with emacs/gcc/gdb as a
development environment?

>>
>To put it bluntly: emacs.
>>
>Just s/emacs/vim/ and you're rolling.

>
I like GCC with Eclipse and the CDT. I also prefer DDD to GDB.
GCC 4.x has profile guided optimization and other advanced features.
>

ddd is just a front end to gdb.

ddd sucks. Its one of the ugliest guis ever made IMO.

[Richard]

Re: A good compiler

Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.in validwrites:

Frodo Baggins said:
>
<snip>
>

>Please don't flame me, but what's wrong with emacs/gcc/gdb as a
>development environment?

>
To put it bluntly: emacs.
>
Just s/emacs/vim/ and you're rolling.

Hahahaha. Good one.

--

[Richard]

Re: A good compiler

Mark McIntyre <markmcintyre@s pamcop.netwrite s:

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:38:51 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<jacob@jacob.re mcomp.frwrote:
>

>>Frodo Baggins wrote:

>>>
>>Please don't flame me, but what's wrong with emacs/gcc/gdb as a
>>development environment? Sure, a bit of work with glue/polish may be
>>needed.
>>>
>>Regards,
>>Frodo B
>>>

>>
>>"A bit of work with glue/polish" yeah...
>>
>>o gcc is one of the slowest compilers I have ever used.
> It keeps getting slower at each new version.

>
You have a different experience to me. We use gcc for a fairly
enormous set of systems at work which we compile for Windows, Solaris
and RHEL, and gcc not noticeably slower than MSVC on Linux (on Solaris
its a dog but thats a /solaris/ problem, not a gcc one...).
>

> o 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.

[santosh]

Re: A good compiler

Richard wrote:

user923005 <dcorbit@connx. comwrites:
>

>On Jul 24, 9:46 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.i nvalidwrote:

>>Frodo Baggins said:
>>>
>><snip>
>>>
>Please don't flame me, but what's wrong with emacs/gcc/gdb as a
>development environment?
>>>
>>To put it bluntly: emacs.
>>>
>>Just s/emacs/vim/ and you're rolling.

>>
>I like GCC with Eclipse and the CDT. I also prefer DDD to GDB.
>GCC 4.x has profile guided optimization and other advanced features.
>>

>
ddd is just a front end to gdb.
>
ddd sucks. Its one of the ugliest guis ever made IMO.

I'd assume that one would look for functionality and ease of use of the UI,
in a debugger if nowhere else, not it's eye-candy effect. Where do you find
DDD lacking, as far as ease of use is concerned?

[Ben Bacarisse]

Re: A good compiler

Chris Hills <chris@phaedsys .orgwrites:

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

>>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. Careful reading of the arguments made
in a posting (and in the poster's history) are usually a better
indication than requiring public declarations.

>they ought to declare that
>>when recommending it. If they're merely interested in it, that isn't
>>the same thing. But if they stand to gain money from its promotion,
>>then it is reasonable to deduce that their advice may not be impartial,
>>so yes, you're right, they should declare an interest.

>
The FOSS Devotees have an irrational, religious support for FOSS and
this should ALWAYS be declared weather or not money changes hands.

I would have thought that it would be obvious from the postings when
an irrational, religious, support is being expressed -- just as it will
be obvious when rational and well-argued support is presented.

The same as EVERYONE who touts GCC and Linux who has an interest in
it.

Of course, and that is obvious from the touting is it not? What more
could you want?

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". 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.

--
Ben.