469,600 Members | 2,444 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,600 developers. It's quick & easy.

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.

Jan 18 '07 #1
87 3394
H. a écrit :
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.
If you use windows you can use my compiler system lcc-win32

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

o All windows APIs are supported
o 128 bit integers, 352 bits floating points
o bignums

o IDE + project management and makefile generation
o debugger (windowed)
o ressource editor (graphical dialog box designer)

o profiler
o grep/diff/search/ and many other goodies

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Jan 18 '07 #2
"H." <hb****@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@51g2000cwl.googlegrou ps.com...
>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.
Suggestions:

a)There are a number of ports of gcc that will work. Other posters will
suggest them, I'm sure.

b)Microsoft's Visual C++ has come way down in price (about $120 now, I
think). This might be an option. It will operate in "C only" mode.

c)If you have a spare PC, you can just download Fedora and set up a Linux
box. gcc is automatically part of that.

d)If you can get an account on a *nix machine somewhere, you could always
use a compiler remotely. This might seem awkward, but with Putty or another
terminal emulator you can edit competently ... it works fine.

By the way, "gcc" is the "GNU Compiler Collection" or the "GNU C Compiler"
(I'm not sure which), but if you search by "gcc home page" you'll find it.
--
David T. Ashley (dt*@e3ft.com)
http://www.e3ft.com (Consulting Home Page)
http://www.dtashley.com (Personal Home Page)
http://gpl.e3ft.com (GPL Publications and Projects)
Jan 18 '07 #3
H. wrote:
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.
For Windows:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/ex...c/default.aspx

For any platform:
http://www.mingw.org/download.shtml +
http://www.eclipse.org/callisto/downloads.php +
http://download.eclipse.org/tools/cd...to/dist/3.1.1/

Jan 18 '07 #4
"user923005" <dc*****@connx.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@q2g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
H. wrote:
>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.

For Windows:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/ex...c/default.aspx
It seems from the Microsoft website that this is a free download (I'm
shocked). Did I get that right?

Also, I'm going to guess that gcc has forced Microsoft to do this. With gcc
available for Windows, it is more than adequate for the instructional needs
of universities, people trying to learn C on their own, and so on. I think
Microsoft has been forced to do this. Am I guessing right?

--
David T. Ashley (dt*@e3ft.com)
http://www.e3ft.com (Consulting Home Page)
http://www.dtashley.com (Personal Home Page)
http://gpl.e3ft.com (GPL Publications and Projects)
Jan 18 '07 #5

"David T. Ashley" <dt*@e3ft.comwrote in message
news:7Y******************************@giganews.com ...
b)Microsoft's Visual C++ has come way down in price (about $120 now, I
think). This might be an option. It will operate in "C only" mode.
The learning edition of VC is free which compiles C89 code.

If you want to be able to program C99 too, lcc-win32 goes a long way if not
all the way and gcc is pretty decent too
Jan 18 '07 #6
[Drifting off-topic...]

In article <7Y******************************@giganews.com>,
David T. Ashley <dt*@e3ft.comwrote:
>b)Microsoft's Visual C++ has come way down in price (about $120 now, I
think). This might be an option. It will operate in "C only" mode.
Microsoft will even let you use it without charging you for it, if you
choose the right version.
For somebody who's already running Windows and just trying to get started
with a C compiler, this is probably the best choice, though it does take
a little bit of Clue to bludgeon VC++ into submission if you want it to
act like a conforming C compiler.

>c)If you have a spare PC, you can just download Fedora and set up a Linux
box. gcc is automatically part of that.
I believe the usual Linux recommendation is Ubuntu these days.
(Personally, I'd go with one of the BSDs, but that might be a bit on the
new-user-unfriendly side for somebody who's just trying to get started
with C.)

If the OP doesn't mind installing some kind of virtualization software
(also available at no cost if you choose the right package and version),
this can even be done without a spare machine. But that's probably not
worth the effort unless you're looking for more than just a C compiler.

>d)If you can get an account on a *nix machine somewhere, you could always
use a compiler remotely. This might seem awkward, but with Putty or another
terminal emulator you can edit competently ... it works fine.
Perhaps I'm just old-fashioned, but it seems to me that the OP's school
should have a Unix machine in a closet somewhere for exactly this purpose.
It's also worth checking whether the school has suitable software
available to students at no cost.
See also:
http://cpax.org.uk/prg/portable/c/re...#FreeCompilers
dave

--
Dave Vandervies dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Thankfully that's beyond the capacities of most spammers
(else they'd be smart enough not to be spammers?).
--Giles Malet in uw.mfcf.gripe
Jan 18 '07 #7

"H." <hb****@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@51g2000cwl.googlegrou ps.com...
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.
Assuming you want to run on Windows there are lots of choices. Not sure how
they each police C against C++ but the all work.
Personally I tend to use MINGW from www.mingw.org. Its a bit fiddly to get
installed, but its a native "C" on Windows. Its widely used and well
supported. Others are Watcom, www.openwatcom.org, VisualStudio C Express
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/default.aspx .

I think most of these will assume files of filetype "C" are C not C++ but
how much checking they do I am not sure. In some ways the last two are
easier to use for a move as they include Integrated Development
Environments. If you are going to develop Windows programs then I would
certainly suggest the latter...

Dave.
Jan 18 '07 #8

"David T. Ashley" <dt*@e3ft.comwrote in message
news:gd******************************@giganews.com ...
"user923005" <dc*****@connx.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@q2g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
H. wrote:
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.
For Windows:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/ex...c/default.aspx

It seems from the Microsoft website that this is a free download (I'm
shocked). Did I get that right?
Yes its right. They have always had student editions that were cheap...
Also, I'm going to guess that gcc has forced Microsoft to do this. With
gcc
available for Windows, it is more than adequate for the instructional
needs
of universities, people trying to learn C on their own, and so on. I
think
Microsoft has been forced to do this. Am I guessing right?
I don't think so as they have done the same for all developer products. C#,
VB and WebDeveloper are also free....
--
David T. Ashley (dt*@e3ft.com)
http://www.e3ft.com (Consulting Home Page)
http://www.dtashley.com (Personal Home Page)
http://gpl.e3ft.com (GPL Publications and Projects)


Jan 18 '07 #9
H.
If you use windows you can use my compiler system lcc-win32
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
I do use Windows, and this looks great. One problem though is that when
I click on "lcc-win32" which I think should open an executable, what
happens instead is that the URL changes to:
http://www.q-software-solutions.de/downloaders/get_name
which lists some C books for purchase.
At this page, after searching, I found a "take me to the downloads"
link. So the problem is really a UI one. Anyway, thanks.

Jan 18 '07 #10
H. a écrit :
>>If you use windows you can use my compiler system lcc-win32

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


I do use Windows, and this looks great. One problem though is that when
I click on "lcc-win32" which I think should open an executable, what
happens instead is that the URL changes to:
http://www.q-software-solutions.de/downloaders/get_name
which lists some C books for purchase.
At this page, after searching, I found a "take me to the downloads"
link. So the problem is really a UI one. Anyway, thanks.
Yeah...

We try to get some money to cover the costs of the server,
the bandwidth, etc. But as you see, it is free.
Jan 18 '07 #11
jacob navia wrote:
If you use windows you can use my compiler system lcc-win32

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Before you think about downloading this, you might like to browse
recent postings by jn in this group. While being an arrogant prat
doesn't necessarily indicate that someone will be a bad
compiler-writer, the cavalier attitude to international standards
displayed day in, day out on this group should give pause for thought.

Jan 18 '07 #12
H. escreveu:
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.
Given the multitude of suggestions that arrived here, don't you think
the FAQ could also reflect this?
Jan 19 '07 #13
As I did not see still being mentioned here, Turbo C++ can also compile
C code http://www.turboexplorer.com/cpp and there is the so called
Command Line tool compiler from CodeGear (formerly Borland)
http://www.codegear.com/default.aspx?tabid=139

Jan 19 '07 #14
Cesar Rabak <cs*****@yahoo.com.brwrites:
H. escreveu:
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.
Given the multitude of suggestions that arrived here, don't you think
the FAQ could also reflect this?
See section 18. If you think some significant information is missing,
contact Steve Summit.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Jan 19 '07 #15
"H." <hb****@gmail.comwrote:
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.
<http://www.bloodshed.net/devcpp.html>. Despite the name, it also does
straight C.

Richard
Jan 19 '07 #16
in 715285 20070118 201602 dj******@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Dave Vandervies) wrote:
>>c)If you have a spare PC, you can just download Fedora and set up a Linux
box. gcc is automatically part of that.

I believe the usual Linux recommendation is Ubuntu these days.
(Personally, I'd go with one of the BSDs, but that might be a bit on the
new-user-unfriendly side for somebody who's just trying to get started
with C.)

If the OP doesn't mind installing some kind of virtualization software
(also available at no cost if you choose the right package and version),
this can even be done without a spare machine. But that's probably not
worth the effort unless you're looking for more than just a C compiler.
Neither a spare PC nor virtualisation software is necessary to add Ubuntu
to your machine as long as you have sufficient free hard disk space - about 3GB
is more than enough. I have 4 different operating systems on a machine with
20GB of HDD (OS/2, Ubuntu 6.10, W2K and W98).

If you don't want to disturb your HDD partitioning then look at Virtual Box (it's free).

http://www.virtualbox.org/
Jan 19 '07 #17
"David T. Ashley" wrote:
"user923005" <dc*****@connx.comwrote in message
.... snip ...
>>
For Windows:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/ex...c/default.aspx

It seems from the Microsoft website that this is a free download
(I'm shocked). Did I get that right?

Also, I'm going to guess that gcc has forced Microsoft to do this.
With gcc available for Windows, it is more than adequate for the
instructional needs of universities, people trying to learn C on
their own, and so on. I think Microsoft has been forced to do
this. Am I guessing right?
As far as I am concerned it is useless. Claims to require W2000
up, and I won't let those on my hardware, due to the EULA. Stick
with some version of GCC.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

Jan 19 '07 #18

H. wrote:
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.
I'd suggest DJGPP (http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/) (responses elsethread
imply you're running Windows); it contains a version of gcc that runs
on Windows' emulation of DOS. Its advantage over many of the other
Windows compilers is that it is normally capable of translating
(nonportable) code written for UNIX/Linux systems into something
sensible.

--
ais523

Jan 19 '07 #19
<rb********@mailinator.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@s34g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
jacob navia wrote:
>If you use windows you can use my compiler system lcc-win32

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

Before you think about downloading this, you might like to browse
recent postings by jn in this group. While being an arrogant prat
doesn't necessarily indicate that someone will be a bad
compiler-writer, the cavalier attitude to international standards
displayed day in, day out on this group should give pause for thought.
Advising somebody not to use his compiler because you dont agree with the
compiler writer's way of posting in a freaking newsgroup is really sad.

Get out more and learn to see things in perspective.
Jan 19 '07 #20
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:41:16 -0600, David T. Ashley wrote
(in article <7Y******************************@giganews.com>) :
"H." <hb****@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@51g2000cwl.googlegrou ps.com...
>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.

Suggestions:

a)There are a number of ports of gcc that will work. Other posters will
suggest them, I'm sure.
Indeed. For a free compiler, you can't beat it, and there are
certainly some out there that are far worse, some mentioned in this
thread.
b)Microsoft's Visual C++ has come way down in price (about $120 now, I
think). This might be an option. It will operate in "C only" mode.
For very narrowly defined definitions of "C".
c)If you have a spare PC, you can just download Fedora and set up a Linux
box. gcc is automatically part of that.
"Basic debugging capabilities" /probably/ means an IDE with integrated
debugger in 2007, although plenty of us old-timers prefer other
methods.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

Jan 19 '07 #21
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 23:05:58 -0600, CBFalconer wrote
(in article <45***************@yahoo.com>):
"David T. Ashley" wrote:
>"user923005" <dc*****@connx.comwrote in message
... snip ...
>>>
For Windows:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/ex...c/default.aspx

It seems from the Microsoft website that this is a free download
(I'm shocked). Did I get that right?

Also, I'm going to guess that gcc has forced Microsoft to do this.
With gcc available for Windows, it is more than adequate for the
instructional needs of universities, people trying to learn C on
their own, and so on. I think Microsoft has been forced to do
this. Am I guessing right?

As far as I am concerned it is useless. Claims to require W2000
up, and I won't let those on my hardware, due to the EULA. Stick
with some version of GCC.
Better yet, buy a Mac mini for cheap, and run the free (and built into
the install DVD) Xcode front-end to gcc, which is very nice, has all
the standard GUI features you might expect, and runs on a stable OS.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

Jan 19 '07 #22
I don't know if it works on other platforms other than Windows but Pelles C
is excellent and free.
If I recall correctly it has some support for C99.

Regards
Chris Saunders

"Randy Howard" <ra*********@FOOverizonBAR.netwrote in message
news:00*****************************@news.verizon. net...
On Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:41:16 -0600, David T. Ashley wrote
(in article <7Y******************************@giganews.com>) :
>"H." <hb****@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11*********************@51g2000cwl.googlegro ups.com...
>>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.

Suggestions:

a)There are a number of ports of gcc that will work. Other posters will
suggest them, I'm sure.

Indeed. For a free compiler, you can't beat it, and there are
certainly some out there that are far worse, some mentioned in this
thread.
>b)Microsoft's Visual C++ has come way down in price (about $120 now, I
think). This might be an option. It will operate in "C only" mode.

For very narrowly defined definitions of "C".
>c)If you have a spare PC, you can just download Fedora and set up a Linux
box. gcc is automatically part of that.

"Basic debugging capabilities" /probably/ means an IDE with integrated
debugger in 2007, although plenty of us old-timers prefer other
methods.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw



Jan 19 '07 #23
Chris Saunders wrote:
I don't know if it works on other platforms other than Windows but
Pelles C is excellent and free. If I recall correctly it has some
support for C99.
Please don't top-post. Your replies belong following or interspersed
with properly trimmed quotes. See the majority of other posts in the
newsgroup, or:
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>
Jan 19 '07 #24
On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 20:13:38 +0100, in comp.lang.c , "Serve
Laurijssen" <se*@n.tkwrote:
><rb********@mailinator.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@s34g2000cwa.googleg roups.com...
>>
While being an arrogant prat
doesn't necessarily indicate that someone will be a bad
compiler-writer, the cavalier attitude to international standards
displayed day in, day out on this group should give pause for thought.

Advising somebody not to use his compiler because you dont agree with the
compiler writer's way of posting in a freaking newsgroup is really sad.
I think the point was more that jn hasn't displayed much interest in
or understanding of the difference between standards compliance, and
platform-specific extensions. My own experience is that drivers who
think red lights and indicating are optional tend to make bad drivers.

--
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
Jan 19 '07 #25

"Mark McIntyre" <ma**********@spamcop.netwrote in message
news:do********************************@4ax.com...
>>Advising somebody not to use his compiler because you dont agree with the
compiler writer's way of posting in a freaking newsgroup is really sad.

I think the point was more that jn hasn't displayed much interest in
or understanding of the difference between standards compliance, and
platform-specific extensions. My own experience is that drivers who
think red lights and indicating are optional tend to make bad drivers.
that is only true if platform specific extensions could be compared to
driving through red light. platform specific extensions *are* allowed so it
doesnt make anybody a bad programmer when they use them.

I know a good programmer who uses gcc's extensions a lot. Is gcc bad for
introducing the features or the programmer or nobody?
Jan 20 '07 #26
"Serve Laurijssen" <se*@n.tkwrites:
"Mark McIntyre" <ma**********@spamcop.netwrote in message
news:do********************************@4ax.com...
>Advising somebody not to use his compiler because you dont agree with the
compiler writer's way of posting in a freaking newsgroup is really sad.
I think the point was more that jn hasn't displayed much interest in
or understanding of the difference between standards compliance, and
platform-specific extensions. My own experience is that drivers who
think red lights and indicating are optional tend to make bad drivers.

that is only true if platform specific extensions could be compared to
driving through red light. platform specific extensions *are* allowed so it
doesnt make anybody a bad programmer when they use them.

I know a good programmer who uses gcc's extensions a lot. Is gcc bad for
introducing the features or the programmer or nobody?
Nobody, as long as the programmer is aware that the extensions are
non-standard.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Jan 20 '07 #27
Serve Laurijssen a écrit :
"Mark McIntyre" <ma**********@spamcop.netwrote in message
news:do********************************@4ax.com...
>>>Advising somebody not to use his compiler because you dont agree with the
compiler writer's way of posting in a freaking newsgroup is really sad.

I think the point was more that jn hasn't displayed much interest in
or understanding of the difference between standards compliance, and
platform-specific extensions. My own experience is that drivers who
think red lights and indicating are optional tend to make bad drivers.


that is only true if platform specific extensions could be compared to
driving through red light. platform specific extensions *are* allowed so it
doesnt make anybody a bad programmer when they use them.

I know a good programmer who uses gcc's extensions a lot. Is gcc bad for
introducing the features or the programmer or nobody?

Let's not polemic because of a stupid comment from an anonymous coward.
(unless he really is called "rbhlgjwbvi" of course :-)

Anyway Mr Mcintyre only knows about polemic. No substantive arguments
anywhere.

Personally I try to avoid this discussions because they lead to nothing
productive.

Thanks for your comments.

jacob
Jan 20 '07 #28
On Sat, 20 Jan 2007 11:04:10 +0100, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
>Personally I try to avoid this discussions because they lead to nothing
productive.
Hilarious.
--
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
Jan 20 '07 #29
Since you are on Windows, I would recommend Pelles C. It runs using
the LCC compiler, and in my opinion, is quite a bit better than
lcc-win32.

Pelles C - http://www.smorgasbordet.com/pellesc/

Also, if you are just looking for a compiler, I heartily recommend
OpenWatcom. It is fantastic for both C++ and C. It gets rid of alot of
overhead for the STL(C++), and it has many optimization options. It is
just as good, if not better than gcc/g++ on Windows, and it is
ofcourse, open source. Plus it runs as a replacement for Microsoft's
C++ compiler(it has the same cmd name), just incase you need that too.

OpenWatcom - http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Download

Good luck anyways.

Jan 20 '07 #30
Sorry, but I insist on "top posting". I personally find it annoying to have
to scroll through a post to read the responce when I have been following the
conversation. I have read and disagree the site in the URL you posted.
Fortunatly for you, I will not be sending messages frequently to this group
but thought I could be helpful to the person I was responding to.

Regards
Chris Saunders

"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrote in message
news:51*************@mid.individual.net...
Chris Saunders wrote:
>I don't know if it works on other platforms other than Windows but
Pelles C is excellent and free. If I recall correctly it has some
support for C99.

Please don't top-post. Your replies belong following or interspersed
with properly trimmed quotes. See the majority of other posts in the
newsgroup, or:
<http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html>

Jan 21 '07 #31
"Chris Saunders" <ev**@mountaincable.netwrites:
Sorry, but I insist on "top posting".
Even if you think that top-posting is better for some reason, surely
you can realize that consistency is important.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Jan 21 '07 #32
Chris Saunders wrote:
Sorry, but I insist on "top posting".
*plonk*
Brian
Jan 21 '07 #33
Chris Saunders said:
Sorry, but I insist on "top posting". I personally find it annoying to
have to scroll through a post to read the responce when I have been
following the conversation.
How annoying did you find this reply? How much of this post did you have to
scroll through?

Removal of irrelevant ex-context renders scrolling unnecessary in short
replies. In a long reply, you'd have to scroll *anyway*, and putting each
counter-point after the point to which it pertains is a simple courtesy
designed to *minimise* scrolling (from point to counter-point,
counter-point to next point, next point to next counter-point, etc).

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.
Jan 21 '07 #34
Hi Keith

I'm not sure I understand your meaning. I consistantly "top post" and wish
others would. However I never comment on anothers posting style and am sure
that there are others that prefer this. I do not wish to maintain a
standard that I do not agree with. I'm sure this gives the "top posting
police" a fit but I will continue with my way. I'm not going to post again
on this topic as I don't think it is worth much discussion.

Regards
Chris Saunders

"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.orgwrote in message
news:ln************@nuthaus.mib.org...
"Chris Saunders" <ev**@mountaincable.netwrites:
>Sorry, but I insist on "top posting".

Even if you think that top-posting is better for some reason, surely
you can realize that consistency is important.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org
<http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*>
<http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

Jan 21 '07 #35
In article <d3**************************@MOUNTAINCABLE.NET> , Chris
Saunders <ev**@mountaincable.netwrites
>Hi Keith

I'm not sure I understand your meaning. I consistantly "top post" and wish
others would.
The rules of this and most Usenet News Group prohibit top posting. It
is the sign of a civilised society that its members stick to the rule so
of that community.
However I never comment on anothers posting style and am sure
that there are others that prefer this.
Others are asking you to conform to the rules of this NG
I do not wish to maintain a
standard that I do not agree with.
Then leave the group that has this rule as part of the community.
(Which is most Usenet NG's

>"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.orgwrote in message
news:ln************@nuthaus.mib.org...
>"Chris Saunders" <ev**@mountaincable.netwrites:
>>Sorry, but I insist on "top posting".

Even if you think that top-posting is better for some reason, surely
you can realize that consistency is important.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org
<http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*>
<http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Just for once we agree , Keith :-)

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Jan 21 '07 #36
"Chris Saunders" <ev**@mountaincable.netwrites:
Hi Keith

I'm not sure I understand your meaning. I consistantly "top post" and wish
others would.
I am sure Keith Thompson meant consistency between all posters to a
group. If everyone one did as you want (top post with full quote)
then the discussion *can* be followed but what is lost is the ability
to see to what part of a post a poster is replying.

An interleaved reply contains more information. The comments are
properly in context. With good snipping, and/or a good reader that can
fold quotes (i.e. hide/show then at a stroke) no more scrolling is
required.

You can choose to:

(a) Mess up the logical order of a thread by doing what you want and not
what others do in this group.

(b) Fit in for the common good.

I am not, by nature, inclined to "fit in" but I reserve my right to be
different for issues that really matter.

--
Ben.
Jan 21 '07 #37
Chris Saunders wrote, On 21/01/07 08:51:

Rude top posting fixed.
"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.orgwrote in message
news:ln************@nuthaus.mib.org...
>"Chris Saunders" <ev**@mountaincable.netwrites:
>>Sorry, but I insist on "top posting".
Even if you think that top-posting is better for some reason, surely
you can realize that consistency is important.
Hi Keith

I'm not sure I understand your meaning.
Look at the posts in this group and you will see that yours are
inconsistent with the majority of the posts in this group.
I consistantly "top post" and wish
others would.
Well, most people here wish you would not top post. Why should the
wishes of the one outweigh the wishes of the many?
However I never comment on anothers posting style and am sure
that there are others that prefer this. I do not wish to maintain a
standard that I do not agree with. I'm sure this gives the "top posting
police" a fit but I will continue with my way. I'm not going to post again
on this topic as I don't think it is worth much discussion.
If you continue top-posting it is unlikely you will get any help from
the majority of C experts here.
--
Flash Gordon
Jan 21 '07 #38
In article <d3**************************@MOUNTAINCABLE.NET> ,
Chris Saunders <ev**@mountaincable.netwrote:
>Hi Keith

I'm not sure I understand your meaning. I consistantly "top post" and wish
others would. However I never comment on anothers posting style and am sure
that there are others that prefer this. I do not wish to maintain a
standard that I do not agree with. I'm sure this gives the "top posting
police" a fit but I will continue with my way. I'm not going to post again
on this topic as I don't think it is worth much discussion.
Agreed.

Oh, and, in case there's any doubt, "Keith" and "Default Loser" are
known anal retentive idiots. Just ignore them (hopefully they will go
away). In any case, they never have anything interesting to say, and
nothing is lost by simply ignoring them.

Jan 21 '07 #39
"Chris Saunders" <ev**@mountaincable.netwrites:
Hi Keith

I'm not sure I understand your meaning. I consistantly "top post" and wish
others would. However I never comment on anothers posting style and am sure
that there are others that prefer this. I do not wish to maintain a
standard that I do not agree with. I'm sure this gives the "top posting
police" a fit but I will continue with my way. I'm not going to post again
on this topic as I don't think it is worth much discussion.
Read the following links:

http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/topposting.php

Then do what you want, but consider this: if you insist on
top-posting, this newsgroup will be much less useful to you than it
could have been. Your name is undoubtedly already in a number of
killfiles, and many people will refuse to answer your questions.

Note that we're not suggesting that you should quote an entire long
article followed by your response, so having to read through large
volumes of quoted text isn't an issue. You should trim the quoted
material, deleting anything that's not relevant to your followup.
There are thousands of examples in this newsgroup.

Some of us spend considerable time reading articles in this newsgroup.
Changing the order in which you post makes that more difficult, and
makes it less likely that we'll bother to read whatever you write.
Insisting on doing so repeatedly is rude.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Jan 21 '07 #40
Chris Saunders wrote:
>
Sorry, but I insist on "top posting". I personally find it
annoying to have to scroll through a post to read the responce
when I have been following the conversation. I have read and
disagree the site in the URL yo7u posted. Fortunatly for you,
I will not be sending messages frequently to this group but
thought I could be helpful to the person I was responding to.
And when you do you won't be noticed. PLONK

--
<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
Jan 21 '07 #41
On 18 Jan 2007 10:18:49 -0800, H. <hb****@gmail.comwrote:
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.
This is the 21st century -- you are more likely to find good Free Software
than shareware or "freeware" these days. GCC and its derivates come to
mind:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Compiler_Collection
C++ isn't allowed in
assignments, and I would like the compiler to check for C syntax
instead of C++ syntax.
You need to look into which flags you pass to the compiler -- not only to
make sure you're not using C++, but also to enforce modern type checking,
warnings for stupid beginner's mistakes, to disable compiler-specific
extensions to the language, and to choose the C89 or C99 standard. For gcc,
a good starting point is

gcc -W -Wall -pedantic -std=c89
or
gcc -W -Wall -pedantic -std=c99

This applies to gcc and many or most other compilers.

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu
\X/ snipabacken.dyndns.org R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
Jan 21 '07 #42
Jorgen Grahn <gr********@snipabacken.dyndns.orgwrites:
[...]
You need to look into which flags you pass to the compiler -- not only to
make sure you're not using C++, but also to enforce modern type checking,
warnings for stupid beginner's mistakes, to disable compiler-specific
extensions to the language, and to choose the C89 or C99 standard. For gcc,
a good starting point is

gcc -W -Wall -pedantic -std=c89
or
gcc -W -Wall -pedantic -std=c99
The latter doesn't entirely conform to the C99 standard;
it might or might not be close enough for your purposes.
See <http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html>.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
Jan 21 '07 #43
In article <8e*************************@MOUNTAINCABLE.NET>,
Chris Saunders <ev**@mountaincable.netwrote:
>Sorry, but I insist on "top posting". I personally find it annoying to have
to scroll through a post to read the responce when I have been following the
conversation.
And most of the people reading here find it annoying to see an entire,
untrimmed, quoted post at the end of your post as the only context for
your comments.

If you really want to annoy us, none of us can stop you, but you can
expect a lot of us to ignore you.
dave

--
Dave Vandervies dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Top-posting =no context =no help.
Top-posting repeatedly =idiot =plonk =no help.
--Chris Dollin in comp.lang.c
Jan 21 '07 #44
In article <ep**********@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
Dave Vandervies <dj******@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.cawrote:
>In article <8e*************************@MOUNTAINCABLE.NET>,
Chris Saunders <ev**@mountaincable.netwrote:
>>Sorry, but I insist on "top posting". I personally find it annoying to have
to scroll through a post to read the responce when I have been following the
conversation.

And most of the people reading here find it annoying to see an entire,
untrimmed, quoted post at the end of your post as the only context for
your comments.

If you really want to annoy us, none of us can stop you, but you can
expect a lot of us to ignore you.
And you'll be the better for it. Think of it as self-killfiling.

Jan 21 '07 #45
Jacob,
I just noticed your post. I have been using your compiler for
about a year. Excellent job. I have recommended it to many friends.
Thanks.

Andrew

jacob navia wrote:
H. a écrit :
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.

If you use windows you can use my compiler system lcc-win32

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

o All windows APIs are supported
o 128 bit integers, 352 bits floating points
o bignums

o IDE + project management and makefile generation
o debugger (windowed)
o ressource editor (graphical dialog box designer)

o profiler
o grep/diff/search/ and many other goodies

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Jan 22 '07 #46
H. wrote:
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.
Hi:

You can try AMPC (Axiomatic Multi-Platform C) compiler which supports
ANSI C (1989). It generates Java Bytecode which makes the executables
platform-independent. Check it out here: http://www.axiomsol.com

Have fun.

Napi

Jan 22 '07 #47
napi wrote, On 22/01/07 04:12:
H. wrote:
>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.

Hi:

You can try AMPC (Axiomatic Multi-Platform C) compiler which supports
ANSI C (1989).
No it does not. According to your web site "AMPC covers a very large
subset of ANSI C (1989)." A large subset is *not* the language defined
by the standard, the language defined by the language is *all* of the
language defined by the standard. So if the OP finds that for his course
he is required to use feature X defined by the standard that you do not
currently support do you guarantee to add it to your compiler fast
enough not to cause him problems?
It generates Java Bytecode which makes the executables
platform-independent. Check it out here: http://www.axiomsol.com
It is an interesting project, but I would not recommend it for people on
a course unless the course specifies it since you never know when you
might hit things it does not implement. At least with other compilers
you know that it is only bugs in the C89 implementation rather than
having not fully implemented C.
--
Flash Gordon
Jan 22 '07 #48
"Chris Saunders" <ev**@mountaincable.netwrote:
Sorry, but I insist on "top posting".
*Plonk*

Richard
Jan 22 '07 #49
"napi" <na**@axiomsol.comwrote:
You can try AMPC
It generates Java Bytecode which makes the executables platform-independent.
*Snigger*

Richard
Jan 22 '07 #50

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.