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.

[jacob navia]

santosh a écrit :

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
distinguishi ng 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/>

Surely not the same front end since I have rewritten completely
the front end for C99. Pelles C is strictly C89.

The back end is from lcc 4.1, and the back end of lcc-win32 is
completely different, all completely rewritten.

jacob

[santosh]

Richard Bos wrote:

"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?

jacob will hopefully correct any mistakes, but as far as I know, lcc,
(as written by Fraser and Hanson), is both a front-end and back-end,
the latter for several targets. Apparently, jacob has significantly
modified the back-end for x86, and written a set of tools like code
editor, project manager and others to encapsulate the compile, assemble
and link process.

[santosh]

jacob navia wrote:

santosh a écrit :

jacob navia wrote:

<snip>

>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/>

Surely not the same front end since I have rewritten completely
the front end for C99. Pelles C is strictly C89.

The back end is from lcc 4.1, and the back end of lcc-win32 is
completely different, all completely rewritten.

In that case I apologise to you and Richard Bos for the misinformation.
I'd been under the impression that you'd only modified the back-end.

Incidentally, the PellesC home page claims to have implemented "most"
of C99.

[CBFalconer]

jacob navia wrote:

Ben Pfaff a écrit :

.... snip ...

>>
I don't see the authors of GCC posting here without properly
distinguishi ng 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.

Calling every minor disagreement or misconstruance a lie is not
gaining you any friends. Maybe you should set your spellchecker to
flag "lie".

--
<http://www.cs.auckland .ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>

"A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
-- Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
"There is nothing more amazing than stupidity in action."
-- Thomas Matthews

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <45************ ***@yahoo.com>,
CBFalconer <cb********@mai neline.netwrote :

>jacob navia wrote:

>Ben Pfaff a écrit :

... snip ...

>>>
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.

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

Calling every minor disagreement or misconstruance a lie is not
gaining you any friends. Maybe you should set your spellchecker to
flag "lie".

Who would want to be friends with a turd like you?

I think you seriously overestimate your importance.

[jacob.navia]

santosh a écrit :

Incidentally, the PellesC home page claims to have implemented "most"
of C99.

Yes. I have checked some constructs and it implements several, probably
most as youy say.

[Dan Henry]

On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 22:48:14 -0500, "Chris Saunders"
<ev**@mountainc able.netwrote:

>Sorry, but I insist on "top posting".

When I clear phlem, I insist on spitting. In Singapore I spit out my
phlem, was arrested, then caned. I told them sternly that "I insist
on spitting". They didn't care and caned me anyway as per their
*local customs, conventions, and law*.

*PLONK*

--
Dan Henry

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <hv************ *************** *****@4ax.com>,
Dan Henry <us****@danlhen ry.comwrote:

>On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 22:48:14 -0500, "Chris Saunders"
<ev**@mountain cable.netwrote:

>>Sorry, but I insist on "top posting".

When I clear phlem, I insist on spitting. In Singapore I spit out my
phlem, was arrested, then caned. I told them sternly that "I insist
on spitting". They didn't care and caned me anyway as per their
*local customs, conventions, and law*.

And you loved every minute of it.