Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0

[mikee188]

Can I use Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 to compile C programs? If so, is
Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 a good choice as a C compiler?

Thanks in advance,

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

mi******@yahoo.com wrote:

Can I use Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 to compile C programs? If so, is
Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 a good choice as a C compiler?

Its not a great compiler.

A better (ie more standards compliant, includes large portions
of the C99 standard) you should probably try MinGW:

http://www.mingw.com/

Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo no****@mega-nerd.com (Yes it's valid)
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"I have a cat, so I know that when she digs her very sharp claws
into my chest or stomach it's really a sign of affection, but I
don't see any reason for programming languages to show affection
with pain." -- Erik Naggum, comp.lang.lisp

[Lefty Bigfoot]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 01:34:30 -0500, mi******@yahoo.com wrote
(in article
<11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>):

Can I use Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 to compile C programs?
Presumably you mean portable, standard C programs or you would
be posting somewhere else, like one of the win32 groups or
Windows groups.

Sort of, it is possible to make it a reasonably strict C
compiler, but it does not support C99, and you have to work
to make it a strict C89 compiler. Step 1, don't use .cpp
as a file extension. Next, pay very careful attention to
project settings if you use the IDE to build. If you are
using the free command line version just to get a free C
compiler, read on...
If so, is Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 a good choice as a C compiler?

There are worse ones, but not a lot of them anymore.

gcc, MinGW, Dev-C++, Cygwin/gcc, etc. for free choices worth
investigating on Windows boxes.

Intel also makes a very nice commercial compiler.

[Malcolm]

<mi******@yahoo.com> wrote

Can I use Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 to compile C programs? If so, is
Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 a good choice as a C compiler?

I you want to write ANSI standard C89 it doesn't really matter what compiler
you use. Virtually all conform.
The MSVC++ documentation does have a few niggly errors. For instance the
scanf() documentation doesn't describe how to pass a set of values to match,
main() is frequently and incorrectly presented as returning void. However it
isn't unusable.

If you want to write C99, you have few choices. In fact it now seems
unlikely that the standard will ever be implemented.

No one buys MSVC++ just to compile ANSI standard programs. The libraries and
other tools provided are excellent, but off-topic here.

[Emmanuel Delahaye]

mi******@yahoo.com wrote on 26/06/05 :

Can I use Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 to compile C programs? If so, is
Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 a good choice as a C compiler?

Yes. In addition, the debugger is excellent.

--
Emmanuel
The C-FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/faq.html
The C-library: http://www.dinkumware.com/refxc.html

"Mal nommer les choses c'est ajouter du malheur au
monde." -- Albert Camus.

[hlwu]

mi******@yahoo.com wrote:

Can I use Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 to compile C programs? If so, is
Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 a good choice as a C compiler?

Thanks in advance,

I believe at least some time functions don't work.

[onlywin_kr]

I think that your choice is good of winodws flatform.

mi******@yahoo.com wrote:

Can I use Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 to compile C programs? If so, is
Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 a good choice as a C compiler?

Thanks in advance,

[onlywin_kr]

I think that your choice is good of windows flatform....

[CBFalconer]

onlywin_kr wrote:

mi******@yahoo.com wrote:

Can I use Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 to compile C programs? If so,
is Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 a good choice as a C compiler?

I think that your choice is good of winodws flatform.

For a winodws flatform, I can think of nothing else. For any other
system, including Windows, flat or curvaceous, I would look into
gcc.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson

[Michael Wojcik]

In article <mn***********************@YOURBRAnoos.fr>, "Emmanuel Delahaye" <em***@YOURBRAnoos.fr> writes:

mi******@yahoo.com wrote on 26/06/05 :

Can I use Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 to compile C programs? If so, is
Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 a good choice as a C compiler?

Yes. In addition, the debugger is excellent.

True, if by "excellent" you mean "barely adequate". Major deficiencies
in the VC6 debugger include:

- It doesn't recognize enums. (This is particularly embarassing for
a modern commercial C debugger.)

- It can't detach from a program being debugged and allow it to
continue running normally.

- It has no text mode - it's GUI-only. Many people prefer GUIs, but
not everyone. An "excellent" debugger would cater to both.

- Some displays (eg watch lists) can only be updated when the
debugged program is not executing.

- Some displays (eg the thread list) are modal dialog boxes instead
of being proper dockable windows.

- Breakpoint positioning is nonsensical in some cases. For example,
in a loop with the body on the same source line as the controlling
statement, the debugger treats the next line of code as part of the
loop for breakpoint-target purposes, so you cannot step past the loop
by setting a breakpoint on that line.

- It's not easily scriptable.

The VC7 debugger fixes some of these, but it's still far from
"excellent".

--
Michael Wojcik mi************@microfocus.com

Then a good friend got very ill, and it made Pernsteiner realize that
"life is short. This was an opportunity to be silly."

[Guillaume]

CBFalconer wrote:

For a winodws flatform, I can think of nothing else. For any other
system, including Windows, flat or curvaceous, I would look into
gcc.

MinGW is pretty good.
http://www.mingw.org/

Compared to that, VC++ is kinda crappy. Of course, the main advantage
of VC++ is its GUI, not the compiler itself...

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <da********@news1.newsguy.com>,
Michael Wojcik <mw*****@newsguy.com> wrote:

In article <mn***********************@YOURBRAnoos.fr>, "Emmanuel Delahaye" <em***@YOURBRAnoos.fr> writes:

mi******@yahoo.com wrote on 26/06/05 :

> Can I use Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 to compile C programs? If so, is
> Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0 a good choice as a C compiler?

Yes. In addition, the debugger is excellent.

True, if by "excellent" you mean "barely adequate".

That definition has always been in use at/by Microsoft.

[CBFalconer]

Guillaume wrote:

CBFalconer wrote:

For a winodws flatform, I can think of nothing else. For any other
system, including Windows, flat or curvaceous, I would look into
gcc.

MinGW is pretty good.
http://www.mingw.org/

Compared to that, VC++ is kinda crappy. Of course, the main advantage
of VC++ is its GUI, not the compiler itself...

You did miss the main point of my post, which doesn't exist without
the part I quoted.

--
Chuck F (cb********@yahoo.com) (cb********@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!

[Guillaume]

CBFalconer wrote:

You did miss the main point of my post, which doesn't exist without
the part I quoted.

No no, that was pretty funny all right... ;-)

I just felt compelled to still give some useful link in case anyone
would be interested...

[toby]

Guillaume wrote:

CBFalconer wrote:

For a winodws flatform, I can think of nothing else. For any other
system, including Windows, flat or curvaceous, I would look into
gcc.

MinGW is pretty good.
http://www.mingw.org/

Compared to that, VC++ is kinda crappy. Of course, the main advantage
of VC++ is its GUI, not the compiler itself...

....and Eclipse makes VC's GUI look pretty crappy, too.