convenient C/C++ compiler

[polychrom]

need advice for convenient C/C++ compiler. I do web development mainly,
i am not a programmer. Need compile few C source codes (ready). Compact
EXE size matters.

thanks

[Mike Wahler]

<po*******@softhome.netwrote in message
news:11**********************@h48g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...

need advice for convenient C/C++ compiler. I do web development mainly,
i am not a programmer. Need compile few C source codes (ready). Compact
EXE size matters.

"Convenient" means different things to different folks.
For the meaning of "easily and quickly acquirable, and
inexpensive (in this case free)", see www.gnu.org
"Ease of use" is of course, in the eye of the beholder.
Good luck.

-Mike

[Andrea Laforgia]

On 1 Oct 2006 12:04:32 -0700, po*******@softhome.net wrote:

>need advice for convenient C/C++ compiler. I do web development mainly,
i am not a programmer. Need compile few C source codes (ready). Compact
EXE size matters.

"Convenience" is strictly tied to which platform your source codes are
built for.

[Michael Mair]

po*******@softhome.net wrote:

need advice for convenient C/C++ compiler. I do web development mainly,
i am not a programmer. Need compile few C source codes (ready). Compact
EXE size matters.

Please specify convenient:
- Which platform?
- GUI indispensable? Or dare you the terror of the command line?

Note that
- this is not exactly a C question, so some people may see it as
off-topic. However, the comp.lang.c wiki offers the following:
http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/C_resources
- "C/C++" is a rather dangerous term; you have two separate languages
C and C++. Compiling C code with a C++ compiler is not advisable as
the languages are sufficiently different to give you headaches (the
programme cannot be compiled or, worse, it can be compiled and linked
but the executable does not always do what it is supposed to do).
If you decide to use a compiler/IDE with C and C++ support both, then
make sure that you use the C mode to avoid nasty surprises.

Cheers
Michael
--
E-Mail: Mine is an /at/ gmx /dot/ de address.

[Richard Heathfield]

Michael Mair said:

po*******@softhome.net wrote:

>need advice for convenient C/C++ compiler. I do web development mainly,
i am not a programmer. Need compile few C source codes (ready). Compact
EXE size matters.

Please specify convenient:
- Which platform?

Windows - betcha.

- GUI indispensable?

Yes - betcha.

Or dare you the terror of the command line?

What's a command line? - betcha.

--
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)

[polychrom]

Michael Mair пи�ал(а):

po*******@softhome.net wrote:

need advice for convenient C/C++ compiler. I do web development mainly,
i am not a programmer. Need compile few C source codes (ready). Compact
EXE size matters.

Please specify convenient:
- Which platform?
- GUI indispensable? Or dare you the terror of the command line?

Note that
- this is not exactly a C question, so some people may see it as
off-topic. However, the comp.lang.c wiki offers the following:
http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/C_resources
- "C/C++" is a rather dangerous term; you have two separate languages
C and C++. Compiling C code with a C++ compiler is not advisable as
the languages are sufficiently different to give you headaches (the
programme cannot be compiled or, worse, it can be compiled and linked
but the executable does not always do what it is supposed to do).
If you decide to use a compiler/IDE with C and C++ support both, then
make sure that you use the C mode to avoid nasty surprises.

Cheers
Michael
--
E-Mail: Mine is an /at/ gmx /dot/ de address.

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

Yes, sure, i need to amplify:
1. I meant free C compiler
2. for ms windows xp platform
3. I would attempt to use command line compiler (as a spare variant, I
need also GUI compiler (another )
4. by convenient i meant tool designed to compile code, not huge IDE
tool platform with plenty of tunings.

thanks.

[Michael Mair]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Michael Mair said:

>>po*******@softhome.net wrote:

>>>need advice for convenient C/C++ compiler. I do web development mainly,
i am not a programmer. Need compile few C source codes (ready). Compact
EXE size matters.

Please specify convenient:
- Which platform?

Windows - betcha.

>>- GUI indispensable?

Yes - betcha.

>>Or dare you the terror of the command line?

What's a command line? - betcha.

All quite probable. However, the OP seemed to need some help in
getting started with the "smart questions". And, for me, a command
line for many things is a thousand times more convenient than a
GUI (which may hide too much) :-)
Cheers
Michael
--
E-Mail: Mine is an /at/ gmx /dot/ de address.

[pkirk25]

On Windows, this is free as in beer and truly a pleasure to use.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/ex...ualc/download/

Only thing you need to remember is to name all source files with .c for
C and .cpp for C++

On Linux you will be using gcc and I'd recommend ctags:
http://ctags.sourceforge.net/faq.html#1

[Christopher Layne]

pkirk25 wrote:

On Windows, this is free as in beer and truly a pleasure to use.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/ex...ualc/download/

pleasure to use? I'll avoid it like the plague. gcc4life.

[Richard Heathfield]

pkirk25 said:

On Windows, this is free as in beer and truly a pleasure to use.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/ex...ualc/download/

Only thing you need to remember is to name all source files with .c for
C and .cpp for C++

That is generally true[1], not just true for Visual C. Perhaps you are
referring to "filename completion", whereby lazy gits don't bother typing
in *any* extension and simply assume instead that the IDE will be able to
guess what language they intend to use. Well, it tries. It doesn't try
terribly hard, though. In my case, the guess is wrong at least 99% of the
time.
[1] Some exceptions exist. For example, on some implementations .c means C
but .C (upper case) means C++. On others, C++ files are expected to end in
..cxx (turn your head slightly to one side). There are probably systems
where .c++ is expected. And of course there are some systems where the
concept of "file extension" is meaningless.

--
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]

pkirk25 пи�ал(а):

On Windows, this is free as in beer and truly a pleasure to use.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/ex...ualc/download/

Only thing you need to remember is to name all source files with .c for
C and .cpp for C++

On Linux you will be using gcc and I'd recommend ctags:
http://ctags.sourceforge.net/faq.html#1

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

I want MinGW. There are plenty of packs in
http://www.mingw.org/download.shtml
What minimal pack i need for windows XP?

[David Wade]

<po*******@softhome.netwrote in message
news:11**********************@h48g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...

need advice for convenient C/C++ compiler. I do web development mainly,
i am not a programmer. Need compile few C source codes (ready). Compact
EXE size matters.

thanks

As you have said "EXE" that implies "Windows". As you are not a programmer I
would hazzard a guess that getting the code to work with a minimum of effort
is more important that small EXE size. If the programs have previously been
compiled on Windows , as most code has compiler and platform dependancies of
some kind, try and use whatever the original writer used.

If you (really) want compact EXE files over ease of getting it working, then
probably using a Windows/X86 specific compiler (i.e. non portable) compiler
such as Microsoft Visual C.

Dave.

[David Wade]

>

>"mistral" <po*******@softhome.netwrote in message

news:11*********************@m7g2000cwm.googlegrou ps.com...

>
pkirk25 ?????(?):

>On Windows, this is free as in beer and truly a pleasure to use.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/ex...ualc/download/

Only thing you need to remember is to name all source files with .c for
C and .cpp for C++

On Linux you will be using gcc and I'd recommend ctags:
http://ctags.sourceforge.net/faq.html#1

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

I want MinGW. There are plenty of packs in
http://www.mingw.org/download.shtml
What minimal pack i need for windows XP?

You will get a must better answer on a MINGW mailing list....

[Mark McIntyre]

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 04:58:44 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote:

>pkirk25 said:

>On Windows, this is free as in beer and truly a pleasure to use.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/ex...ualc/download/

Only thing you need to remember is to name all source files with .c for
C and .cpp for C++

That is generally true[1], not just true for Visual C. Perhaps you are
referring to "filename completion", whereby lazy gits don't bother typing
in *any* extension

Not necessary to blame the user - sometimes Windows tries to stick the
"right" ending on anyway.. try saving a file called "foo.dat" from
notepad and you get foo.dat.txt...
--
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

[Richard Heathfield]

Mark McIntyre said:

On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 04:58:44 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote:

>Perhaps you are
referring to "filename completion", whereby lazy gits don't bother typing
in *any* extension

Not necessary to blame the user

Yes it is! :-)

- sometimes Windows tries to stick the
"right" ending on anyway.. try saving a file called "foo.dat" from
notepad and you get foo.dat.txt...

Not if you actually type "foo.dat" (complete with quotes), as I do.

--
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)

[Jordan Abel]

In article <td********************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote:

And of course there are some systems where the
concept of "file extension" is meaningless.

Are there any C implementations where file extension is meaningless? I
believe that implementations are required to provide a way to make
extensions on source files themselves meaningful (IIRC up to one
not guaranteed case sensitive character for c89 and three for c99), for
the preprocessor, even if they're not meaningful for applications on the
target platform.

[Richard Heathfield]

Jordan Abel said:

In article <td********************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote:

>And of course there are some systems where the
concept of "file extension" is meaningless.

Are there any C implementations where file extension is meaningless?

LE370 and C/370 are both C implementations capable of running under OS390,
which doesn't have a file extension concept.

I
believe that implementations are required to provide a way to make
extensions on source files themselves meaningful (IIRC up to one
not guaranteed case sensitive character for c89 and three for c99), for
the preprocessor, even if they're not meaningful for applications on the
target platform.

Chapter and verse, please.

--
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)

[Walter Roberson]

In article <ra*****************************@news.individual.n et>,
Jordan Abel <ra*******@gmail.comwrote:

>In article <td********************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote:

>And of course there are some systems where the
concept of "file extension" is meaningless.

>Are there any C implementations where file extension is meaningless? I
believe that implementations are required to provide a way to make
extensions on source files themselves meaningful (IIRC up to one
not guaranteed case sensitive character for c89 and three for c99), for
the preprocessor, even if they're not meaningful for applications on the
target platform.

C89's wording is,

There shall be an implementation-defined mapping between the
delimited sequence and the external source file name. The implementation
shall provide unique mappings for sequences consisting of one or more
letters (as defined in 2.2.1) followed by a period (.) and a single
letter. The implementation may ignore the distinctions of alphabetical
case and restrict the mapping to six significant characters before
the period.

So it would be valid to, for example, take the first up-to- six characters
of the header file name before the period, uppercase that, and
append the uppercase of the first character after the period, resulting
in a filename of 2 through 7 uppercase characters with the filesystem
knowing nothing about filename extensions. Or, related to that,
there are systems on which you pretty much cannot invoke the editor
except on files with certain extensions (e.g., the extension might
convey information about the internal file format).
(Now I've done it... I'm going to have flashbacks to my MVS days and
dream of STDIOH TEXT !)
--
There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person
could believe in them. -- George Orwell

[mistral]

David Wade wrote:

<po*******@softhome.netwrote in message
news:11**********************@h48g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...

need advice for convenient C/C++ compiler. I do web development mainly,
i am not a programmer. Need compile few C source codes (ready). Compact
EXE size matters.

thanks

As you have said "EXE" that implies "Windows". As you are not a programmer I
would hazzard a guess that getting the code to work with a minimum of effort
is more important that small EXE size. If the programs have previously been
compiled on Windows , as most code has compiler and platform dependancies of
some kind, try and use whatever the original writer used.

If you (really) want compact EXE files over ease of getting it working, then
probably using a Windows/X86 specific compiler (i.e. non portable) compiler
such as Microsoft Visual C.

Dave.

--------
Is the M$ Visual C++ 2005 Express Edition suitable for this?

mistral

[Jordan Abel]

[I am using a new newsreader. I have a sneaking suspicion that this may
be posted in HTML format but cannot find any way to tell if this is the
case or how to turn it off. I'm hoping, though, that my suspicion is
incorrect]

On 2006-10-02 16:37:17 -0400, Richard Heathfield
<in*****@invalid.invalidsaid:

Jordan Abel said:

>In article <td********************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote:

>>And of course there are some systems where the
concept of "file extension" is meaningless.

Are there any C implementations where file extension is meaningless?

LE370 and C/370 are both C implementations capable of running under
OS390, which doesn't have a file extension concept.

>I
believe that implementations are required to provide a way to make
extensions on source files themselves meaningful (IIRC up to one
not guaranteed case sensitive character for c89 and three for c99), for
the preprocessor, even if they're not meaningful for applications on the
target platform.

Chapter and verse, please.

n1124 6.10.2p5

The implementation shall provide unique mappings for sequences
consisting of one or
more letters or digits (as defined in 5.2.1) followed by a period (.)
and a single letter.
The first character shall be a letter. The implementation may ignore
the distinctions of
alphabetical case and restrict the mapping to eight significant
characters before the
period.

OK, so I was wrong, it wasn't extended to three characters. And it
doesn't say "filename extension", but there are a lot of terms that the
standard doesn't use. In effect, implementations are required to
provide at least 26 possible filename extensions, from .a to .z

[Richard Heathfield]

Jordan Abel said:

[I am using a new newsreader. I have a sneaking suspicion that this may
be posted in HTML format but cannot find any way to tell if this is the
case or how to turn it off. I'm hoping, though, that my suspicion is
incorrect]

Panic's over, Jordan - you're coming through loud and text. :-)

In effect, implementations are required to
provide at least 26 possible filename extensions, from .a to .z

"In effect" being excellent weasel words. For example, any filesystem having
the . character in the set of characters that are legal for filenames will
be perfectly okay even if it doesn't have a clue about file extensions
(provided it conforms in other respects, of course, such as the number of
significant characters and so on).

--
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)

[Richard Bos]

po*******@softhome.net wrote:

Yes, sure, i need to amplify:
1=2E I meant free C compiler
2=2E for ms windows xp platform
3=2E I would attempt to use command line compiler (as a spare variant, I
need also GUI compiler (another )
4=2E by convenient i meant tool designed to compile code, not huge IDE
tool platform with plenty of tunings.

Then you want Dev-C++ (which also handles C):
<http://www.bloodshed.net/dev/index.html>.

Richard