good c compiler

[bernard]

howdy!

please recommend a good c compiler.

- should be small
- should be fast
- should come with a good ide
- should be inexpensive

i am using windows os.

awaiting replies.

[jacob navia]

Re: good c compiler

bernard wrote:

howdy!
>
please recommend a good c compiler.
>
- should be small
- should be fast
- should come with a good ide
- should be inexpensive
>
i am using windows os.
>
awaiting replies.

Hi bernard:

lcc-win is a good compiler. I know, since I wrote most of it.
Comes with good IDE+resource editor, compiler+linker +debugger.
Project management, utilities included.

Compiler has extensive math library. Language accepted is C99.

Price: Zero dollar and zero cents, for personal use.

Download: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win.

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[Keith Thompson]

Re: good c compiler

jacob navia <jacob@nospam.c omwrites:
[...]

lcc-win is a good compiler. I know, since I wrote most of it.
Comes with good IDE+resource editor, compiler+linker +debugger.
Project management, utilities included.
>
Compiler has extensive math library. Language accepted is C99.

Nearly.

Price: Zero dollar and zero cents, for personal use.
>
Download: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win.

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

[CBFalconer]

Re: good c compiler

bernard wrote:

>
please recommend a good c compiler.
>
- should be small
- should be fast
- should come with a good ide
- should be inexpensive
>
i am using windows os.

I recommend getting the DJGPP system and gcc. See delorie.com.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home .att.net>
Try the download section.

[fb]

Re: good c compiler

CBFalconer wrote:

bernard wrote:

>please recommend a good c compiler.
>>
>- should be small
>- should be fast
>- should come with a good ide
>- should be inexpensive
>>
>i am using windows os.

>
I recommend getting the DJGPP system and gcc. See delorie.com.
>

That was a good compiler...but I thought it was DOS only and the
development seems to have gone slightly stale. Still...an excellent
compiler from what I recall.

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: good c compiler

bernard said:

howdy!
>
please recommend a good c compiler.

http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/portable/c/resources.php#FreeCompilers

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

[s0suk3@gmail.com]

Re: good c compiler

On Sep 24, 12:02 am, Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.in validwrote:

bernard said:
>

howdy!

>

please recommend a good c compiler.

>

http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/portable/c/resources.php#FreeCompilers

>

Is the 'lcc' compiler listed below the 'The Digital Mars C compiler'
the same as Jacob's lcc-win?

Sebastian

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: good c compiler

s0suk3@gmail.co m said:

On Sep 24, 12:02 am, Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.in validwrote:

>bernard said:
>>

howdy!

>>

please recommend a good c compiler.

>>
>http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/portable/...#FreeCompilers
>>

>
Is the 'lcc' compiler listed below the 'The Digital Mars C compiler'
the same as Jacob's lcc-win?

As I understand it, Jacob Navia took the lcc source code and used it as the
basis for lcc-win32. So the answer to your question is really "it was,
once, but is no longer".

The lcc-win32 compiler /used/ to be on the list, but I took it off when I
realised that the maintainer wasn't particularly concerned about
conformance (a position that he has made abundantly clear on many
occasions by his impatience towards reports of conformance errors in his
compiler). It's a list of C compilers, not a list of "ain't my language
cute and by the way doesn't it look a bit like C?" compilers.

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

[s0suk3@gmail.com]

Re: good c compiler

On Sep 24, 12:39 am, Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.in validwrote:

s0suk3@gmail.co m said:
>

On Sep 24, 12:02 am, Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.in validwrote:

bernard said:

>

howdy!

>

please recommend a good c compiler.

>

>http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/portable/...#FreeCompilers

>

Is the 'lcc' compiler listed below the 'The Digital Mars C compiler'
the same as Jacob's lcc-win?

>
As I understand it, Jacob Navia took the lcc source code and used it as the
basis for lcc-win32. So the answer to your question is really "it was,
once, but is no longer".
>
The lcc-win32 compiler /used/ to be on the list, but I took it off when I
realised that the maintainer wasn't particularly concerned about
conformance (a position that he has made abundantly clear on many
occasions by his impatience towards reports of conformance errors in his
compiler). It's a list of C compilers, not a list of "ain't my language
cute and by the way doesn't it look a bit like C?" compilers.
>

I see you still hold the absurd position that a non-fully-conforming
compiler "isn't a C compiler"... Well well, no need to discuss that
all over again!

Sebastian

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: good c compiler

s0suk3@gmail.co m said:

<snip>

>
I see you still hold the absurd position that a non-fully-conforming
compiler "isn't a C compiler"...

I see you still hold the absurd position that C compilers are not obliged
to implement the C language correctly. I don't see how this view excludes,
say, the GFA BASIC compiler from being a C compiler. In fact, I don't see
how it excludes a garden fork or a cup of coffee from being a C compiler.

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

[s0suk3@gmail.com]

Re: good c compiler

On Sep 24, 1:07 am, Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.in validwrote:

s0suk3@gmail.co m said:
>
<snip>
>
>
>

I see you still hold the absurd position that a non-fully-conforming
compiler "isn't a C compiler"...

>
I see you still hold the absurd position that C compilers are not obliged
to implement the C language correctly.

Where did I say that C compilers are not obliged to implement the C
language correctly?

I don't see how this view excludes,
say, the GFA BASIC compiler from being a C compiler. In fact, I don't see
how it excludes a garden fork or a cup of coffee from being a C compiler.
>

This excludes them: common sense. (Although you don't make very heavy
use of that.)

Sebastian

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: good c compiler

s0suk3@gmail.co m said:

On Sep 24, 1:07 am, Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.in validwrote:

>s0suk3@gmail.co m said:
>>
><snip>
>>
>>
>>

I see you still hold the absurd position that a non-fully-conforming
compiler "isn't a C compiler"...

>>
>I see you still hold the absurd position that C compilers are not
>obliged to implement the C language correctly.

>
Where did I say that C compilers are not obliged to implement the C
language correctly?

If you agree that C compilers *are* obliged to implement the C language
correctly, you share my "absurd" position that a non-fully-conforming
compiler isn't a C compiler.

>I don't see how this view excludes,
>say, the GFA BASIC compiler from being a C compiler. In fact, I don't
>see how it excludes a garden fork or a cup of coffee from being a C
>compiler.

>
This excludes them: common sense.

Yes, but common sense also excludes (from the set of all C compilers)
compilers that don't implement C, and yet until your most recent
disclaimer (quoted above - "Where did I say that C compilers are not
obliged...") it did seem that you wanted to include compilers that don't
implement C, which flies in the face of common sense.

(Although you don't make very heavy use of that.)

That may or may not be true, but you haven't demonstrated it to be true.

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

[s0suk3@gmail.com]

Re: good c compiler

On Sep 24, 1:34 am, Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.in validwrote:

s0suk3@gmail.co m said:
>

On Sep 24, 1:07 am, Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.in validwrote:

s0suk3@gmail.co m said:

>

<snip>

>

I see you still hold the absurd position that a non-fully-conforming
compiler "isn't a C compiler"...

>

I see you still hold the absurd position that C compilers are not
obliged to implement the C language correctly.

>

Where did I say that C compilers are not obliged to implement the C
language correctly?

>
If you agree that C compilers *are* obliged to implement the C language
correctly, you share my "absurd" position that a non-fully-conforming
compiler isn't a C compiler.
>

No, because fully-conforming is not the same as correctly. Remember
that dereferencing an uninitialized pointer can cause a fully-
conforming implementation to execute the "rm -rf /" command. I don't
know about you, but I don't consider that "correctnes s". In any event,
there are still more important things in an implementation than full
conformance, such as actual usability, as I've mentioned before (e.g.,
powerful libraries, good optimization, innovative language extensions,
etc).

I don't see how this view excludes,
say, the GFA BASIC compiler from being a C compiler. In fact, I don't
see how it excludes a garden fork or a cup of coffee from being a C
compiler.

>

This excludes them: common sense.

>
Yes, but common sense also excludes (from the set of all C compilers)
compilers that don't implement C, and yet until your most recent
disclaimer (quoted above - "Where did I say that C compilers are not
obliged...") it did seem that you wanted to include compilers that don't
implement C, which flies in the face of common sense.
>

Terminology disagreements. Let's forget them.

Sebastian

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: good c compiler

s0suk3@gmail.co m said:

On Sep 24, 1:34 am, Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.in validwrote:

>s0suk3@gmail.co m said:
>>

On Sep 24, 1:07 am, Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.in validwrote:
>s0suk3@gmail.co m said:

>>

><snip>

>>

I see you still hold the absurd position that a
non-fully-conforming compiler "isn't a C compiler"...

>>

>I see you still hold the absurd position that C compilers are not
>obliged to implement the C language correctly.

>>

Where did I say that C compilers are not obliged to implement the C
language correctly?

>>
>If you agree that C compilers *are* obliged to implement the C language
>correctly, you share my "absurd" position that a non-fully-conforming
>compiler isn't a C compiler.
>>

>
No, because fully-conforming is not the same as correctly.

If an implementation does not translate C programs according to the C
language definition, how can it be considered a C implementation?

Remember
that dereferencing an uninitialized pointer can cause a fully-
conforming implementation to execute the "rm -rf /" command. I don't
know about you, but I don't consider that "correctnes s".

The incorrectness is in the program, not the implementation. But you merely
place an *additional* constraint on C implementations , the constraint of
"reasonableness ", the constraint of "not deliberately setting out to wreak
revenge on the hapless programmer" - and of course mainstream
implementations do observe this constraint. Nevertheless, programmers
would do well to stick to the rules of C if they wish their code to work.

In any event,
there are still more important things in an implementation than full
conformance,

I agree. Nevertheless, without conformance, it isn't a C implementation. It
might be a very important implementation indeed with lots of very
important features but, for it to be a C implementation, I do think it
needs to implement C.

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

[cr88192]

Re: good c compiler


"bernard" <nospam@nospam. invalidwrote in message
news:6855642.du 78ljVUCQ@aioe.o rg...

howdy!
>
please recommend a good c compiler.
>
- should be small
- should be fast
- should come with a good ide
- should be inexpensive
>
i am using windows os.
>

MinGW and Cygwin are good.
each has different merits, but I more prefer MinGW for technical reasons
(but Cygwin is better at being a "nicer" framework with a better set of
tools).

free IDE's are also available, but I don't personally use them.

awaiting replies.