About Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition

[mistral]

Does Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition produce small, compact C
executables?
Or there is another C compilers that do this better?

m.

[jacob navia]

mistral wrote:

Does Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition produce small, compact C
executables?
Or there is another C compilers that do this better?

m.

lcc-win32 produces (sometimes) smaller executables. The only
optimizations lcc-win32 does actually, are optimizations that delete
instructions, so the code is quite compact. The size of the libraries is
smaller too. Custom implementations could be smaller, if you
have a budget for them.

jacob

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

[Richard Bos]

"mistral" <po*******@soft home.netwrote:

Does Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition produce small, compact C
executables?
Or there is another C compilers that do this better?

I've always found Dev-C++ (<http://www.bloodshed.n et/dev/index.html>)
useful, but I haven't checked the size of its executables.

Richard

[Richard Heathfield]

mistral said:

Does Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition produce small, compact C
executables?

Let's find out.

<later>

Well, it depends on what you mean by "small". :-)

Or there is another C compilers that do this better?

Here's a small source file, which should show up the overhead of various
compilers quite well:

#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
puts("Hello world");
return 0;
}

Here are the executable image sizes, in bytes (implementation s with "C++" in
their title were invoked in C mode!):

gcc 2.81 for DOS: 92403
Visual C++ 5.0: 81408
Borland C++ 5.3: 55296
Borland C++ 5.6: 50688
Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition: 40960
gcc 2.95.3 for Linux: 34686
Visual C++ 6.0: 28672
Visual C++ 1.5: 5699
Turbo C++ 1.01: 4760

I tried to download lcc-win32 for comparison purposes, but the main site's
download link was bad, and the backup site screamed "bad gateway" at me, so
I guess that comparison will have to wait for some other day.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[mistral]

Richard Heathfield пи�ал(а):

mistral said:

Does Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition produce small, compact C
executables?

Let's find out.

<later>

Well, it depends on what you mean by "small". :-)

Or there is another C compilers that do this better?

Here's a small source file, which should show up the overhead of various
compilers quite well:

#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
puts("Hello world");
return 0;
}

Here are the executable image sizes, in bytes (implementation s with "C++"in
their title were invoked in C mode!):

gcc 2.81 for DOS: 92403
Visual C++ 5.0: 81408
Borland C++ 5.3: 55296
Borland C++ 5.6: 50688
Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition: 40960
gcc 2.95.3 for Linux: 34686
Visual C++ 6.0: 28672
Visual C++ 1.5: 5699
Turbo C++ 1.01: 4760

I tried to download lcc-win32 for comparison purposes, but the main site's
download link was bad, and the backup site screamed "bad gateway" at me, so
I guess that comparison will have to wait for some other day.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

--------------

The most code has compiler and platform dependancies?
In 'c' sources codes was not specified what compiler originally used.
Probably, better use Windows/X86 specific compiler (i.e. non
portable), freeware is Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition only?

m.

[Richard Heathfield]

mistral said:

>
Richard Heathfield ?????(?):

>mistral said:

Does Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition produce small, compact C
executables?

Let's find out.

<later>

Well, it depends on what you mean by "small". :-)

Or there is another C compilers that do this better?

Here's a small source file, which should show up the overhead of various
compilers quite well:

#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
puts("Hello world");
return 0;
}

Here are the executable image sizes, in bytes (implementation s with "C++"
in their title were invoked in C mode!):

gcc 2.81 for DOS: 92403
Visual C++ 5.0: 81408
Borland C++ 5.3: 55296
Borland C++ 5.6: 50688
Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition: 40960
gcc 2.95.3 for Linux: 34686
Visual C++ 6.0: 28672
Visual C++ 1.5: 5699
Turbo C++ 1.01: 4760

I tried to download lcc-win32 for comparison purposes, but the main
site's download link was bad, and the backup site screamed "bad gateway"
at me, so I guess that comparison will have to wait for some other day.

The most code has compiler and platform dependancies?

That's a meaningless question, but I presume you meant something by it, so
could you possibly re-phrase it?

In 'c' sources codes was not specified what compiler originally used.

Again, I don't understand this.

Probably, better use Windows/X86 specific compiler (i.e. non
portable), freeware is Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition only?

Of the compilers I listed above, gcc and VC2005 are both freeware. Borland
also do a couple of freeware compilers. See also Digital Mars, MinGW, lcc,
and Pacific C. I suppose there's also lcc-win32, but I tried to get it
earlier today and failed completely so I suppose it's no longer available.

On the following page, you will find hyperlinks to their home pages:

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

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

[Nils O. Selåsdal]

jacob navia wrote:

mistral wrote:

>Does Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition produce small, compact C
executables? Or there is another C compilers that do this better?

m.

lcc-win32 produces (sometimes) smaller executables. The only

That must be rare, there's many tricks that can save enormous amount
of generated code, and visual studio can do alot of them..

optimizations lcc-win32 does actually, are optimizations that delete
instructions, so the code is quite compact. The size of the libraries is
smaller too. Custom implementations could be smaller, if you
have a budget for them.

How different is it from the lcc available for e.g. linux ?
It always generates function pre/postambles to save and
restore certain registers even if they're never used..

[jacob navia]

Nils O. Selåsdal wrote:

jacob navia wrote:

>mistral wrote:

>>Does Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition produce small, compact C
executables ? Or there is another C compilers that do this better?

m.

lcc-win32 produces (sometimes) smaller executables. The only

That must be rare, there's many tricks that can save enormous amount
of generated code, and visual studio can do alot of them..

>optimization s lcc-win32 does actually, are optimizations that delete
instructions , so the code is quite compact. The size of the libraries is
smaller too. Custom implementations could be smaller, if you
have a budget for them.

How different is it from the lcc available for e.g. linux ?
It always generates function pre/postambles to save and
restore certain registers even if they're never used..

I have rewritten most of the code there. It is now VERY rare
that a register is saved when there is no need.

I have added:
o register variables, automatically choosen by the compiler
o A peephole optimizer for the 386
o Added many optimizations like constant folding, and others.

[mistral]

Richard Heathfield пи�ал(а):

mistral said:

Richard Heathfield ?????(?):

mistral said:

Does Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition produce small, compact C
executables?

Let's find out.

<later>

Well, it depends on what you mean by "small". :-)

Or there is another C compilers that do this better?

Here's a small source file, which should show up the overhead of various
compilers quite well:

#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
puts("Hello world");
return 0;
}

Here are the executable image sizes, in bytes (implementation s with "C++"
in their title were invoked in C mode!):

gcc 2.81 for DOS: 92403
Visual C++ 5.0: 81408
Borland C++ 5.3: 55296
Borland C++ 5.6: 50688
Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition: 40960
gcc 2.95.3 for Linux: 34686
Visual C++ 6.0: 28672
Visual C++ 1.5: 5699
Turbo C++ 1.01: 4760

I tried to download lcc-win32 for comparison purposes, but the main
site's download link was bad, and the backup site screamed "bad gateway"
at me, so I guess that comparison will have to wait for some other day.

The most code has compiler and platform dependancies?

That's a meaningless question, but I presume you meant something by it, so
could you possibly re-phrase it?

In 'c' sources codes was not specified what compiler originally used.

Again, I don't understand this.

Probably, better use Windows/X86 specific compiler (i.e. non
portable), freeware is Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition only?

Of the compilers I listed above, gcc and VC2005 are both freeware. Borland
also do a couple of freeware compilers. See also Digital Mars, MinGW, lcc,
and Pacific C. I suppose there's also lcc-win32, but I tried to get it
earlier today and failed completely so I suppose it's no longer available.

On the following page, you will find hyperlinks to their home pages:

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

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)

------------

I just meant, that there are no specified in a source code, what
compiler author used.

Well, most portables files produce Visual C++ 1.5 and Turbo C++ 1.01.
However, this does not mean that it have better optimization, because
this compilers may just use dynamically linked dll (crtdll.dll) that
can be often in use in system, so this may affect on speed.
Not clear why so big difference in size between Visual C++ 2005 Express
Edition and old Visual C++ 1.5?

mistral

[Richard Heathfield]

mistral said:

<snip>

>
I just meant, that there are no specified in a source code, what
compiler author used.

If it matters, it may well be written down in the source code somewhere, but
there is no requirement on programmers to document which compiler they
first targeted. Indeed, for code that is topical in comp.lang.c it doesn't
matter, because the code will work on /any/ compiler.

Well, most portables files produce Visual C++ 1.5 and Turbo C++ 1.01.

No. Those are the /smallest/ files. "Smallest" and "most portable" are two
different ideas.

However, this does not mean that it have better optimization, because
this compilers may just use dynamically linked dll (crtdll.dll) that
can be often in use in system, so this may affect on speed.

No, that's not the reason.

Not clear why so big difference in size between Visual C++ 2005 Express
Edition and old Visual C++ 1.5?

It's almost certainly (a) because VC1.5 created the executable program with
16-bit ints, 16-bit pointers, etc, whereas VC2005 probably used 32- or
possibly even 64-bit ints and pointers, and (b) because the older compiler
was targeting MS-DOS, a fairly simple and primitive set of interrupts,
whereas the newer compiler is targeting MS-Windows, a far more complicated
and advanced set of interruptions.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)