Good shareware compiler for C?

[H.]

I am a student taking a machine structures class in a university, which
includes learning C. I am looking for a good freeware or shareware
compiler which can be used in a "C only" mode. C++ isn't allowed in
assignments, and I would like the compiler to check for C syntax
instead of C++ syntax. Besides that, ease of use for a beginner and
basic debugging capabilities are important.

Suggestions are welcome.

[Mark McIntyre]

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 22:44:00 +0100, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.re mcomp.frwrote:

>I try to avoid insults.

Really? I hadn't noticed.

>Not like some others like
mcintyre that treats me of "idiot" in each discussion.

Remember what Forrest Gump said.
--
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]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:01:56 +1300, in comp.lang.c , Ian Collins
<ia******@hotma il.comwrote:

>>Please keep posts civil, personal insults don't belong here.

I agree. You might want to mention that to JN, next time he starts
ranting at Keith or Richard.

I will!

>

>>(Dave V said)

>>>Either he thinks that he, unlike anybody else who has ever extended
the language, is allowed to insist on acting as if navia-C were
interchangea ble with C over the objections of those who point out that it
isn't, or he's just too stupid to recognize the difference; either way,
his contribution falls rather short of being welcome.

Does he? Can you cite an example?

Pick virtually any thread of JN's and it will quite shortly
demonstrate this. The general model is to propose something offtopic,
be advised of this, and then drop into rant mode claiming it _is_
topical because he wants it to be, that C will die unless he's allowed
his say, that people arguing for topicality are bigots, and so forth.
At some point he'll enter into a flame war with several of the
regulars here, involving him suggesting they're too stupid and
hidebound to understand the complicated modern ideas he has, and them
being highly sarcastic in return.

If you've not spotted it I can noly assume you aren't following the
threads beyond the first post. :)

But it's the first post that matters, that's where the extension is
qualified, what follows often degenerates into a slanging match.

--
Ian Collins.

[jacob navia]

Ben Pfaff a écrit :

Ian Collins <ia******@hotma il.comwrites:

>>Dave Vandervies wrote:

>>>Would you get in a car driven by somebody who thought driving on the
right[1] side of the road was optional?
If not, why would you use a compiler written by somebody who thought
that following the definition of the language is optional?

So you'd say the same about the authors of gcc? Both compilers have
their standard mode (includes extensions) and ANSI modes.

I don't see the authors of GCC posting here without properly
distinguishing between standard features and extensions. I have
seen Jacob do that numerous times.

This is a lie. I have never shown my extensions as being
part oif the language.

The people of gcc do not discuss anything about C.

C is dead for them and it is maintained for compatibility
reasons, but all their effort is for C++.

The problem with me is that I develop the only C compiler
that is NOT a C++ compiler.

[jacob navia]

Ian Collins a écrit :

Ben Pfaff wrote:

>>Ian Collins <ia******@hotma il.comwrites:

>>>Dave Vandervies wrote:
Would you get in a car driven by somebody who thought driving on the
right[1] side of the road was optional?
If not, why would you use a compiler written by somebody who thought
that following the definition of the language is optional?
So you'd say the same about the authors of gcc? Both compilers have
their standard mode (includes extensions) and ANSI modes.

I don't see the authors of GCC posting here without properly
distinguishin g between standard features and extensions. I have
seen Jacob do that numerous times.

Maybe I'm getting forgetful in my old age, but I thought Jacob qualifies
his extensions with something like "the lcc implementation of..." when
first mentioning them on a thread.

I have always done that. In the documentation I have tried
to document each extension as such.

[Ian Collins]

jacob navia wrote:

>
The problem with me is that I develop the only C compiler
that is NOT a C++ compiler.

Take care, some of you extensions are heading that way :)
--
Ian Collins.

[jacob navia]

Ian Collins a écrit :

jacob navia wrote:

>>The problem with me is that I develop the only C compiler
that is NOT a C++ compiler.

Take care, some of you extensions are heading that way :)

The whole thing is to see when you STOP.

In general the dividing line between C and C++ is
the object oriented approach. C is NOT "object oriented", and
as a NON object oriented language it has a bright future.

The object oriented hype has been forced into the
software construction process, even if it is not the
best approach in many cases. By making C a safer language
and improving the expressivity of the language an
alternative to the OO aproach emerges.

Another important point is that we have the experience of
C++, and for instance in the operator overloading approach
we can avoid pitfalls like allowing to overload the
"&&" or "||" operators... something every C++ book tries to
explain to novices: Do not do that.

Well, it is easier if the language does NOT allow the overloading
of "&&" or "||".

[Ian Collins]

jacob navia wrote:

Ian Collins a écrit :

>jacob navia wrote:

>>The problem with me is that I develop the only C compiler
that is NOT a C++ compiler.

Take care, some of you extensions are heading that way :)

The whole thing is to see when you STOP.

Some would argue that the C99 committee didn't and that's why the
standard hasn't gained a wider acceptance. Any extension to the
language has to be accepted by the (conservative) C community well
before it is considered for standardisation . Which in practice means
being added to gcc. Thus any extension that is part of C++ will never
be added to gcc's C compiler, because people can just use its C++ mode
and get what they want.

So you are probably flogging a dead horse when it comes to operator
overloading in C.

--
Ian Collins.

[=?utf-8?B?SGFyYWxkIHZhbiBExLNr?=]

jacob navia wrote:

This is a lie. I have never shown my extensions as being
part oif the language.

The people of gcc do not discuss anything about C.

C is dead for them and it is maintained for compatibility
reasons, but all their effort is for C++.

Then why is C99 (slowly) being implemented in gcc at all?

The problem with me is that I develop the only C compiler
that is NOT a C++ compiler.

Even if you refuse to count other lcc-based projects, I can think of
some others:
<http://www.ten15.org/(this one does contain a C++ mode, but it is
so severely lacking that I cannot call it a C++ compiler, and no
efforts to improve its C++ mode are made at this time)
<http://nwcc.sourceforg e.net/>
<http://www.cs.vu.nl/ack/>

[santosh]

jacob navia wrote:

Ben Pfaff a écrit :

Ian Collins <ia******@hotma il.comwrites:

>Dave Vandervies wrote:

Would you get in a car driven by somebody who thought driving on the
right[1] side of the road was optional?
If not, why would you use a compiler written by somebody who thought
that following the definition of the language is optional?
So you'd say the same about the authors of gcc? Both compilers have
their standard mode (includes extensions) and ANSI modes.

I don't see the authors of GCC posting here without properly
distinguishing between standard features and extensions. I have
seen Jacob do that numerous times.

This is a lie. I have never shown my extensions as being
part oif the language.

The people of gcc do not discuss anything about C.

C is dead for them and it is maintained for compatibility
reasons, but all their effort is for C++.

The problem with me is that I develop the only C compiler
that is NOT a C++ compiler.

Don't be too quick in jumping to conclusions. There's also PellesC,
based on the same frontend as lcc-win32.

<http://www.smorgasbord et.com/pellesc/>

[Richard Bos]

"santosh" <sa*********@gm ail.comwrote:

jacob navia wrote:

The problem with me is that I develop the only C compiler
that is NOT a C++ compiler.

Don't be too quick in jumping to conclusions. There's also PellesC,
based on the same frontend as lcc-win32.

<http://www.smorgasbord et.com/pellesc/>

Back end, surely?

Richard