By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
428,659 Members | 910 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 428,659 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

A good compiler

P: n/a
Can anyone suggest me a good compiler for(c/cpp) for windows?
I tried dev cpp but its debugging facility is very poor.

Jul 22 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
244 Replies


P: n/a
Ajinkya wrote:
Can anyone suggest me a good compiler for(c/cpp) for windows?
I tried dev cpp but its debugging facility is very poor.
Try MinGW, it comes with GDB. You may also try one of the "free" Visual C++
Express Editions. There is also PellesC, DJGPP, and lcc-win32. DJGPP is not
strictly for Windows however.

Jul 22 '07 #2

P: n/a
Ajinkya wrote:
Can anyone suggest me a good compiler for(c/cpp) for windows?
I tried dev cpp but its debugging facility is very poor.
It depends very much on personal usage, so you should start by looking
up past reviews (e.g. Google), and start with some which don't involve
too much investment, at least in the trial stage. I use both ICL and
cygwin gcc, recognizing those are clear minority choices. Both are
available for free (30 day trial only for ICL). If you insist on full
GUI, you don't have many choices, so just try them.
Jul 22 '07 #3

P: n/a
In article <11**********************@m37g2000prh.googlegroups .com>,
Ajinkya <ka*********@gmail.comwrites
>Can anyone suggest me a good compiler for(c/cpp) for windows?
I tried dev cpp but its debugging facility is very poor.
It depends what you want to do.

The obvious choice is the free MS Visual C++ 2005 express which is on
free download and is the easiest place to start with windows
development.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Jul 22 '07 #4

P: n/a

"Chris Hills" <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrote in message
news:vv**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
In article <11**********************@m37g2000prh.googlegroups .com>,
Ajinkya <ka*********@gmail.comwrites
>>Can anyone suggest me a good compiler for(c/cpp) for windows?
I tried dev cpp but its debugging facility is very poor.

It depends what you want to do.

The obvious choice is the free MS Visual C++ 2005 express which is on free
download and is the easiest place to start with windows development.
Apart from some trivial command-line stuff, I have yet to achieve a single
working real program with that thing.

--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm

Jul 22 '07 #5

P: n/a
Malcolm McLean wrote, On 22/07/07 21:20:
>
"Chris Hills" <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrote in message
news:vv**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>In article <11**********************@m37g2000prh.googlegroups .com>,
Ajinkya <ka*********@gmail.comwrites
>>Can anyone suggest me a good compiler for(c/cpp) for windows?
I tried dev cpp but its debugging facility is very poor.

It depends what you want to do.

The obvious choice is the free MS Visual C++ 2005 express which is on
free download and is the easiest place to start with windows development.
Apart from some trivial command-line stuff, I have yet to achieve a
single working real program with that thing.
Go and ask on a MS group how to use it. Others manage. Some seem to
manage with a lot of ease.
--
Flash Gordon
Jul 22 '07 #6

P: n/a
"Malcolm McLean" <re*******@btinternet.comwrites:
"Chris Hills" <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrote in message
news:vv**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>In article <11**********************@m37g2000prh.googlegroups .com>,
Ajinkya <ka*********@gmail.comwrites
>>>Can anyone suggest me a good compiler for(c/cpp) for windows?
I tried dev cpp but its debugging facility is very poor.

It depends what you want to do.

The obvious choice is the free MS Visual C++ 2005 express which is
on free download and is the easiest place to start with windows
development.
Apart from some trivial command-line stuff, I have yet to achieve a
single working real program with that thing.
Why? Everyone else seems to manage it just fine. It's not too bad for
free.
Jul 22 '07 #7

P: n/a

"Richard" <rg****@gmail.comwrote in message
news:50************@gmail.com...
"Malcolm McLean" <re*******@btinternet.comwrites:
>"Chris Hills" <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrote in message
news:vv**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>In article <11**********************@m37g2000prh.googlegroups .com>,
Ajinkya <ka*********@gmail.comwrites
Can anyone suggest me a good compiler for(c/cpp) for windows?
I tried dev cpp but its debugging facility is very poor.

It depends what you want to do.

The obvious choice is the free MS Visual C++ 2005 express which is
on free download and is the easiest place to start with windows
development.
Apart from some trivial command-line stuff, I have yet to achieve a
single working real program with that thing.

Why? Everyone else seems to manage it just fine. It's not too bad for
free.
I seem to spend hours putting Chinese hats on identifers and taking them off
again, just to get it to compile a simple window. Though I have had moments
of glory, such as when I coaxed it into putting "Hello world" where I wanted
in a window, it still insists on adding stdafx.h to my portable ANSC C
files, complains about string functions, and things like that. Whilst I can
do little things, and it is kind of fun to play with all the windows and
form tools for your "solution", I don't see how you can work like that for
real.

--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
Jul 22 '07 #8

P: n/a
santosh wrote:
Ajinkya wrote:
>Can anyone suggest me a good compiler for(c/cpp) for windows?
I tried dev cpp but its debugging facility is very poor.

Try MinGW, it comes with GDB. You may also try one of the "free" Visual C++
Express Editions. There is also PellesC, DJGPP, and lcc-win32. DJGPP is not
strictly for Windows however.
But let's do give DJGPP its due. Way back when, Richard Stallman was
asked for a port of GNU C for PC's he opined that it couldn't be done. A
young guy, DJ DeLorie, said "The hell you say!" and went to work.

That all started in the early '1990's as I recall. I got into it at v2
in 1996. DJGPP didn't then and doesn't now know anything about Windows.
It is a DOS program which creates DOS programs. These DOS programs run
perfectly well under the ntvdm.

http://www.delorie.com

--
Joe Wright
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
--- Albert Einstein ---
Jul 22 '07 #9

P: n/a
Malcolm McLean said:
>
"Richard" <rg****@gmail.comwrote in message
news:50************@gmail.com...
<snip - Malcolm has been struggling with Visual C>
>Why? Everyone else seems to manage it just fine. It's not too bad for
free.
I seem to spend hours putting Chinese hats on identifers and taking
them off again, just to get it to compile a simple window.
Why? It's just C. Anyone can write a Win32 C program, yes?
Though I
have had moments of glory, such as when I coaxed it into putting
"Hello world" where I wanted in a window, it still insists on adding
stdafx.h to my portable ANSC C files,
Every single bloomin' time you create a project, your first job is to
switch off pre-compiled headers. Do that, and stdafx.h should stay out
of your hair.
complains about string
functions, and things like that. Whilst I can do little things, and it
is kind of fun to play with all the windows and form tools for your
"solution", I don't see how you can work like that for real.
People do, you know - and it isn't as hard as you're trying to make out.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Jul 22 '07 #10

P: n/a
In article <OY******************************@bt.com>, Malcolm McLean
<re*******@btinternet.comwrites
>
"Chris Hills" <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrote in message
news:vv**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>In article <11**********************@m37g2000prh.googlegroups .com>,
Ajinkya <ka*********@gmail.comwrites
>>>Can anyone suggest me a good compiler for(c/cpp) for windows?
I tried dev cpp but its debugging facility is very poor.

It depends what you want to do.

The obvious choice is the free MS Visual C++ 2005 express which is on
free download and is the easiest place to start with windows
development.
Apart from some trivial command-line stuff, I have yet to achieve a
single working real program with that thing.

I have see some very complex graphics program compiled with it. (All
portable C too) I also know some very good compilers written using it.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Jul 23 '07 #11

P: n/a
In article <50************@gmail.com>, Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrites
>"Malcolm McLean" <re*******@btinternet.comwrites:
>"Chris Hills" <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrote in message
news:vv**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>In article <11**********************@m37g2000prh.googlegroups .com>,
Ajinkya <ka*********@gmail.comwrites
Can anyone suggest me a good compiler for(c/cpp) for windows?
I tried dev cpp but its debugging facility is very poor.

It depends what you want to do.

The obvious choice is the free MS Visual C++ 2005 express which is
on free download and is the easiest place to start with windows
development.
Apart from some trivial command-line stuff, I have yet to achieve a
single working real program with that thing.

Why? Everyone else seems to manage it just fine. It's not too bad for
free.
IT is free.... that was why I suggested it as a good option. If you
get on well with the free one you can expand out to the pay one later if
needed
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Jul 23 '07 #12

P: n/a
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:15:31 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>Malcolm McLean said:
>>
I seem to spend hours putting Chinese hats on identifers and taking
them off again, just to get it to compile a simple window.

Why?
Thats a question you'd have to ask Microsoft. I played with the
"Express" versions a while back (I think I still have the CDs) and
fairly quickly decided it would be more fruitful to build a linux box
and install gcc (or for that matter, more fruitful to wallop myself
over the head with a rubber truncheon ...)
>Every single bloomin' time you create a project, your first job is to
switch off pre-compiled headers. Do that, and stdafx.h should stay out
of your hair.
if only....
>>I don't see how you can work like that for real.

People do, you know - and it isn't as hard as you're trying to make out.
I doubt they use the Express version for real. Given, frinstance that
its forbidden by the licensing conditions... :-)

--
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
Jul 23 '07 #13

P: n/a
Chris Hills skrev:
In article <11**********************@m37g2000prh.googlegroups .com>,
Ajinkya <ka*********@gmail.comwrites
>Can anyone suggest me a good compiler for(c/cpp) for windows?
I tried dev cpp but its debugging facility is very poor.

It depends what you want to do.

The obvious choice is the free MS Visual C++ 2005 express which is on
free download and is the easiest place to start with windows development.
This is so long from obvious as it can get... why not try really free
development tool like eclipse and with CDT you have c/c++ for windows
there is simple installer at http://cdt-windows.sourceforge.net/
>
Jul 24 '07 #14

P: n/a
Malcolm McLean wrote:
I seem to spend hours putting Chinese hats on identifers and taking them
off again, just to get it to compile a simple window. Though I have had
moments of glory, such as when I coaxed it into putting "Hello world"
where I wanted in a window, it still insists on adding stdafx.h to my
portable ANSC C files, complains about string functions, and things like
that.
Not to mention that, along the proprietary "extensions" to the language, it
doesn't even come close to support C99. I don't even understand why so many
people even bother installing that thing.
Rui Maciel
Jul 24 '07 #15

P: n/a
On Jul 24, 4:30 am, Mark McIntyre <markmcint...@spamcop.netwrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:15:31 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard

Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrote:
Malcolm McLean said:
I seem to spend hours putting Chinese hats on identifers and taking
them off again, just to get it to compile a simple window.
Why?

Thats a question you'd have to ask Microsoft. I played with the
"Express" versions a while back (I think I still have the CDs) and
fairly quickly decided it would be more fruitful to build a linux box
and install gcc (or for that matter, more fruitful to wallop myself
over the head with a rubber truncheon ...)
Please don't flame me, but what's wrong with emacs/gcc/gdb as a
development environment? Sure, a bit of work with glue/polish may be
needed.

Regards,
Frodo B

Jul 24 '07 #16

P: n/a
Frodo Baggins wrote:
>
Please don't flame me, but what's wrong with emacs/gcc/gdb as a
development environment? Sure, a bit of work with glue/polish may be
needed.

Regards,
Frodo B
"A bit of work with glue/polish" yeah...

o gcc is one of the slowest compilers I have ever used.
It keeps getting slower at each new version. You can't
stop progress can you?
o emacs will not update a definitions data base (it has none)
and tell you automatically the fields of a structure when
you type "foo->" or "foo.".
o emacs will not go to ANY definition by just a mouse click.
It will go to some definitions if you keep manually the
ctags data base updated. True, you can put it in the makefile.
o emacs will not generate a makefile for you. Neither has any
notion of project management.
o gdb is a pile of shit. It is one of the worst debuggers
(in terms of user interface) I have ever used. More or less
at the level of dbx...
gdb will not show you automatically the modified variables
of the program. In lcc-win32's debugger for instance, you
can see the variables the program is modifying WITHOUT
typing anything. This is very easy to do but gdb is unable
to do that. And emacs+gdb doesn't do it either. You have to
type "print myLongVariable..." AD NAUSEUM!!!

For people living in a refrigerator and running software at the
level of the 1980 or so, gdb + vi + gcc is OK. I used that environment
when I worked here in France in 1986-1989. And I was so happy
to leave that environment!!!

Unfortunately I have been forced to come back and use it when I
ported the compiler to linux 64 bits. What a nightmare.

jacob
Jul 24 '07 #17

P: n/a
Frodo Baggins <fr*********@gmail.comwrites:
On Jul 24, 4:30 am, Mark McIntyre <markmcint...@spamcop.netwrote:
>Thats a question you'd have to ask Microsoft. I played with the
"Express" versions a while back (I think I still have the CDs) and
fairly quickly decided it would be more fruitful to build a linux box
and install gcc (or for that matter, more fruitful to wallop myself
over the head with a rubber truncheon ...)

Please don't flame me, but what's wrong with emacs/gcc/gdb as a
development environment? Sure, a bit of work with glue/polish may be
needed.
I believe that Mark was saying that GCC is better than
Microsoft's "Express" product.
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org
Jul 24 '07 #18

P: n/a
Ajinkya wrote:
Can anyone suggest me a good compiler for(c/cpp) for windows?
I tried dev cpp but its debugging facility is very poor.
Do not use lcc-win32.

It has several drawbacks:

o Free, you can download it and install it in a few minutes. The
whole compiler is just 6MB download can you imagine? You will NOT
be able to take a coffee during the download, and go skiing until
it installs.

o It is a C compiler, so it will not put stdafx stuff automatically,
it will NOT complain when you use standard C functions like fopen,
etc.
o It comes with an IDE with project management, windowed debugger,
resource editor, and all you need for windows programming. (And yes,
all that in that 5MB!).

o You can use precision up to 100 digits automatically. Long double
precision (80 bits floating point), and many other goodies.
1) Statistical library
2) Special functions library
3) Linear algebra library
4) Network functions library

o You will find that most people in comp.lang.c will agree with me:
DO NOT USE LCC-WIN32!!!

:-)
http://www.cs.virginia;edu/~lcc-win32
Jul 24 '07 #19

P: n/a
Frodo Baggins <fr*********@gmail.comwrites:
On Jul 24, 4:30 am, Mark McIntyre <markmcint...@spamcop.netwrote:
>On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:15:31 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard

Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>Malcolm McLean said:
>I seem to spend hours putting Chinese hats on identifers and taking
them off again, just to get it to compile a simple window.
>Why?

Thats a question you'd have to ask Microsoft. I played with the
"Express" versions a while back (I think I still have the CDs) and
fairly quickly decided it would be more fruitful to build a linux box
and install gcc (or for that matter, more fruitful to wallop myself
over the head with a rubber truncheon ...)

Please don't flame me, but what's wrong with emacs/gcc/gdb as a
development environment? Sure, a bit of work with glue/polish may be
needed.
A lot. Compared to using eclipse or VS, it's a lot of hard work with
none of the "ease" of use without a lot of work. emacs is itself a big
project to take on and a lot of the "C" utilities which plug in are
buggy and unfinished.

I use cscope, cedet, ecb, and gdb under gud in emacs and it's ok. But
nowhere near as easy or functional as a "proper" IDE like VS. PS, this
is under Linux where it is much more likely to work than under windows.

One thing I did see recently is that Slickedit now has a plugin for
Eclipse.

>
Regards,
Frodo B
--
Jul 24 '07 #20

P: n/a
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
Frodo Baggins wrote:
>>
Please don't flame me, but what's wrong with emacs/gcc/gdb as a
development environment? Sure, a bit of work with glue/polish may be
needed.

Regards,
Frodo B

"A bit of work with glue/polish" yeah...

o gcc is one of the slowest compilers I have ever used.
It keeps getting slower at each new version. You can't
stop progress can you?
Not really an issue for 99% of cases I think.
o emacs will not update a definitions data base (it has none)
and tell you automatically the fields of a structure when
you type "foo->" or "foo.".
Not true. There is a feature in semantic which will allow auto
completion. It's not perfect but is getting better.
o emacs will not go to ANY definition by just a mouse click.
It will go to some definitions if you keep manually the
ctags data base updated. True, you can put it in the makefile.
In file you can use cedet/semantic.
o emacs will not generate a makefile for you. Neither has any
notion of project management.
True, but no big deal. You can use the automake tools.
o gdb is a pile of shit. It is one of the worst debuggers
(in terms of user interface) I have ever used. More or less
at the level of dbx...
gdb will not show you automatically the modified variables
of the program. In lcc-win32's debugger for instance, you
can see the variables the program is modifying WITHOUT
typing anything. This is very easy to do but gdb is unable
to do that. And emacs+gdb doesn't do it either. You have to
type "print myLongVariable..." AD NAUSEUM!!!
No. You can set watch points and display them in gud/speedbar and they
hilite when they change. For repeated "display" you can use the
"display" command and variables are printed at each step.

Jul 24 '07 #21

P: n/a
Frodo Baggins said:

<snip>
Please don't flame me, but what's wrong with emacs/gcc/gdb as a
development environment?
To put it bluntly: emacs.

Just s/emacs/vim/ and you're rolling.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Jul 24 '07 #22

P: n/a
jacob navia said:
Ajinkya wrote:
>Can anyone suggest me a good compiler for(c/cpp) for windows?
I tried dev cpp but its debugging facility is very poor.

Do not use lcc-win32.
I have a new signature.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Do not use lcc-win32." - Jacob Navia
Jul 24 '07 #23

P: n/a
Richard wrote:
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
>Frodo Baggins wrote:
>>Please don't flame me, but what's wrong with emacs/gcc/gdb as a
development environment? Sure, a bit of work with glue/polish may be
needed.

Regards,
Frodo B
"A bit of work with glue/polish" yeah...

o gcc is one of the slowest compilers I have ever used.
It keeps getting slower at each new version. You can't
stop progress can you?

Not really an issue for 99% of cases I think.
Of course. If you buy a REALLY fast machine, it will
crawl along...
>
>o emacs will not update a definitions data base (it has none)
and tell you automatically the fields of a structure when
you type "foo->" or "foo.".

Not true. There is a feature in semantic which will allow auto
completion. It's not perfect but is getting better.
"Getting better" ...

Yeah. Of course.
>
> o emacs will not go to ANY definition by just a mouse click.
It will go to some definitions if you keep manually the
ctags data base updated. True, you can put it in the makefile.

In file you can use cedet/semantic.
???
> o emacs will not generate a makefile for you. Neither has any
notion of project management.

True, but no big deal. You can use the automake tools.
And then you have to remember when you add
a file to the project to rerun them again, etc etc.
>
> o gdb is a pile of shit. It is one of the worst debuggers
(in terms of user interface) I have ever used. More or less
at the level of dbx...
gdb will not show you automatically the modified variables
of the program. In lcc-win32's debugger for instance, you
can see the variables the program is modifying WITHOUT
typing anything. This is very easy to do but gdb is unable
to do that. And emacs+gdb doesn't do it either. You have to
type "print myLongVariable..." AD NAUSEUM!!!

No. You can set watch points and display them in gud/speedbar and they
hilite when they change. For repeated "display" you can use the
"display" command and variables are printed at each step.
Yes, but I have to tell the dammed thing WHICH variables
to watch you understand? It will not show me automatically
the variables the program is modifying without me typing something!!!

lcc-win32's debugger does that.

Jul 24 '07 #24

P: n/a
On Jul 24, 9:46 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrote:
Frodo Baggins said:

<snip>
Please don't flame me, but what's wrong with emacs/gcc/gdb as a
development environment?

To put it bluntly: emacs.

Just s/emacs/vim/ and you're rolling.
I like GCC with Eclipse and the CDT. I also prefer DDD to GDB.
GCC 4.x has profile guided optimization and other advanced features.

Jul 24 '07 #25

P: n/a
jacob navia wrote:
Ajinkya wrote:
>Can anyone suggest me a good compiler for(c/cpp) for windows?
I tried dev cpp but its debugging facility is very poor.

Do not use lcc-win32.

It has several drawbacks:
[heavy sarcasm mostly omitted. For the unknowing, Jacob is quite proud
of lcc-win32 and considers none of the "drawbacks" as reasons to avoid it.]
o You will find that most people in comp.lang.c will agree with me:
DO NOT USE LCC-WIN32!!!

:-)
This is the line that may cause a problem. Many people in
<news:comp.lang.cuse lcc-win32. I myself use it for projects that are
specifically for windows and for which a C-like language is an
appropriate choice. Jacob frequently posts about non-C "enhancements"
as if they were part of C and, in the course of answering questions
about C. encourages the unwary to use these non-C features as if they
were C. He frequently confuses criticism his inappropriate, off-topic
postings with criticism of lcc-win32. This is unfortunate.
Jul 24 '07 #26

P: n/a
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:38:51 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
>Frodo Baggins wrote:
>>
Please don't flame me, but what's wrong with emacs/gcc/gdb as a
development environment? Sure, a bit of work with glue/polish may be
needed.

Regards,
Frodo B

"A bit of work with glue/polish" yeah...

o gcc is one of the slowest compilers I have ever used.
It keeps getting slower at each new version.
You have a different experience to me. We use gcc for a fairly
enormous set of systems at work which we compile for Windows, Solaris
and RHEL, and gcc not noticeably slower than MSVC on Linux (on Solaris
its a dog but thats a /solaris/ problem, not a gcc one...).
o gdb is a pile of shit.
Hardly. gdb simply isn't a visual gui debugger. If you want that,
there are tools for linux.
--
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
Jul 24 '07 #27

P: n/a
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:46:08 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
>Ajinkya wrote:
>Can anyone suggest me a good compiler for(c/cpp) for windows?
I tried dev cpp but its debugging facility is very poor.

Do not use lcc-win32.

It has several drawbacks:
Amongst which is that its author feels happy to covertly advertise it
in CLC, without disclosing his relationship.
--
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
Jul 24 '07 #28

P: n/a
In article <1s********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrote:
>>Do not use lcc-win32.

It has several drawbacks:
>Amongst which is that its author feels happy to covertly advertise it
in CLC, without disclosing his relationship.
I stopped pointing out errors in the declaration of main(), because I
was confident someone else would do it anyway. Perhaps Jacob feels
that he doesn't need to make any disclaimers, for the same reason.

-- Richard

--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
Jul 24 '07 #29

P: n/a
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
Ajinkya wrote:
Can anyone suggest me a good compiler for(c/cpp) for windows?
I tried dev cpp but its debugging facility is very poor.

Do not use lcc-win32.
This is fantastic advice.
It has several drawbacks:
o It is a C compiler, so it will not put stdafx stuff automatically,
^
not
HTH.

It is a navia-Cish compiler, not a C compiler.
o You will find that most people in comp.lang.c will agree with me:
DO NOT USE LCC-WIN32!!!
And for damned good reasons. Look up how many gaffes its creator has
made over the last couple of years on this newsgroup alone.

Richard
Jul 25 '07 #30

P: n/a
In article <f8**********@aioe.org>, Carramba <ca******@example.com>
writes
>Chris Hills skrev:
>In article <11**********************@m37g2000prh.googlegroups .com>,
Ajinkya <ka*********@gmail.comwrites
>>Can anyone suggest me a good compiler for(c/cpp) for windows?
I tried dev cpp but its debugging facility is very poor.
It depends what you want to do.
The obvious choice is the free MS Visual C++ 2005 express which is
on free download and is the easiest place to start with windows
development.

This is so long from obvious as it can get...

There is no point arguing with FOSS Devotees. They can't see reality.
>why not try really free development tool like eclipse
It's not free.... it has a license (and many conditions) as well.
and with CDT you have c/c++ for windows there is simple installer at
http://cdt-windows.sourceforge.net/
The OS and all the libraries are made by MS. They do a free compiler
to work with them Why wouldn't you use it?

It is like saying if you want to work on Gnome on Linux not to use GCC.

Though technically GCC is old technology compared to the MS Visual
tools.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Jul 25 '07 #31

P: n/a
In article <4b********************************@4ax.com>, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.netwrites
>On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:15:31 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>>Malcolm McLean said:
>>>
I seem to spend hours putting Chinese hats on identifers and taking
them off again, just to get it to compile a simple window.

Why?

Thats a question you'd have to ask Microsoft. I played with the
"Express" versions a while back (I think I still have the CDs) and
fairly quickly decided it would be more fruitful to build a linux box
and install gcc (or for that matter, more fruitful to wallop myself
over the head with a rubber truncheon ...)

It is interesting that I know many who manage to use the MS Visual C++
compilers for a lot of things yet the only solution to some is
FOSS/Linux no matter what the question.

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

Jul 25 '07 #32

P: n/a
rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) writes:
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
[...]
>o It is a C compiler, so it will not put stdafx stuff automatically,
^
not
HTH.

It is a navia-Cish compiler, not a C compiler.
[...]

My understanding is that it conforms to C90 (or is it C95?) if you
invoke it with the "-ansic" option. I have no idea how good its
conformance is.

It also has an option that causes it to partially conform to C99, but
there are some features missing.

It provides a number of non-conforming extensions by default, but
that's fairly typical of C compilers. (The author's emphasis on those
extensions often obscures that point.)

--
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."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Jul 25 '07 #33

P: n/a
In article <46****************@news.xs4all.nl>, Richard Bos
<rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nlwrites
>jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
>Ajinkya wrote:
Can anyone suggest me a good compiler for(c/cpp) for windows?
I tried dev cpp but its debugging facility is very poor.

Do not use lcc-win32.

This is fantastic advice.
>It has several drawbacks:
>o It is a C compiler, so it will not put stdafx stuff automatically,
^
not
HTH.

It is a navia-Cish compiler, not a C compiler.
Just like GCC is a C-like compiler. NOT a C compiler

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

Jul 25 '07 #34

P: n/a
Chris Hills said:

<snip>
Just like GCC is a C-like compiler. NOT a C compiler
How so? I put C in, and object code comes out. It walks like a C
compiler, swims like a C compiler, and quacks like a C compiler.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Jul 25 '07 #35

P: n/a
Chris Hills wrote:
In article <4b********************************@4ax.com>, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.netwrites
>On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 23:15:31 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>>Malcolm McLean said:

I seem to spend hours putting Chinese hats on identifers and taking
them off again, just to get it to compile a simple window.

Why?

Thats a question you'd have to ask Microsoft. I played with the
"Express" versions a while back (I think I still have the CDs) and
fairly quickly decided it would be more fruitful to build a linux box
and install gcc (or for that matter, more fruitful to wallop myself
over the head with a rubber truncheon ...)


It is interesting that I know many who manage to use the MS Visual C++
compilers for a lot of things yet the only solution to some is
FOSS/Linux no matter what the question.
Because...
windows is from the evil empire Chris!

Only pure linux will save us from the evil empire.

Jul 25 '07 #36

P: n/a
Richard Tobin wrote:
In article <1s********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrote:
>>Do not use lcc-win32.

It has several drawbacks:
>Amongst which is that its author feels happy to covertly advertise it
in CLC, without disclosing his relationship.

I stopped pointing out errors in the declaration of main(), because I
was confident someone else would do it anyway. Perhaps Jacob feels
that he doesn't need to make any disclaimers, for the same reason.

-- Richard
Exactly

:-)
Jul 25 '07 #37

P: n/a
Chris Hills wrote:
As usual there is a lot of equivocation and splitting of hares.
I hope they were humanely killed first...

--
Ian Collins.
Jul 25 '07 #38

P: n/a
In article <lc*********************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites
>Chris Hills said:

<snip>
>Just like GCC is a C-like compiler. NOT a C compiler

How so? I put C in, and object code comes out. It walks like a C
compiler, swims like a C compiler, and quacks like a C compiler.
So it is fully C99 compliant?

It is no more compliant than all the other "c-like" compilers that get
slated here for having extensions and omissions to C99. Gcc is no more
a C compiler than lcc-win32 is. You can't have it both ways.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Jul 25 '07 #39

P: n/a
In article <5g*************@mid.individual.net>, Ian Collins
<ia******@hotmail.comwrites
>Chris Hills wrote:
>As usual there is a lot of equivocation and splitting of hares.

I hope they were humanely killed first...
Jugged of course... never kill a sober hare
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Jul 25 '07 #40

P: n/a
user923005 <dc*****@connx.comwrites:
On Jul 24, 9:46 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>Frodo Baggins said:

<snip>
Please don't flame me, but what's wrong with emacs/gcc/gdb as a
development environment?

To put it bluntly: emacs.

Just s/emacs/vim/ and you're rolling.

I like GCC with Eclipse and the CDT. I also prefer DDD to GDB.
GCC 4.x has profile guided optimization and other advanced features.
ddd is just a front end to gdb.

ddd sucks. Its one of the ugliest guis ever made IMO.
Jul 25 '07 #41

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
Frodo Baggins said:

<snip>
>Please don't flame me, but what's wrong with emacs/gcc/gdb as a
development environment?

To put it bluntly: emacs.

Just s/emacs/vim/ and you're rolling.
Hahahaha. Good one.

--
Jul 25 '07 #42

P: n/a
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrites:
On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:38:51 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
>>Frodo Baggins wrote:
>>>
Please don't flame me, but what's wrong with emacs/gcc/gdb as a
development environment? Sure, a bit of work with glue/polish may be
needed.

Regards,
Frodo B

"A bit of work with glue/polish" yeah...

o gcc is one of the slowest compilers I have ever used.
It keeps getting slower at each new version.

You have a different experience to me. We use gcc for a fairly
enormous set of systems at work which we compile for Windows, Solaris
and RHEL, and gcc not noticeably slower than MSVC on Linux (on Solaris
its a dog but thats a /solaris/ problem, not a gcc one...).
> o gdb is a pile of shit.

Hardly. gdb simply isn't a visual gui debugger. If you want that,
there are tools for linux.
Nearly all of which are rubbish. Eclipse might change that. DDD is a joke.
Jul 25 '07 #43

P: n/a
Richard wrote:
user923005 <dc*****@connx.comwrites:
>On Jul 24, 9:46 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>>Frodo Baggins said:

<snip>

Please don't flame me, but what's wrong with emacs/gcc/gdb as a
development environment?

To put it bluntly: emacs.

Just s/emacs/vim/ and you're rolling.

I like GCC with Eclipse and the CDT. I also prefer DDD to GDB.
GCC 4.x has profile guided optimization and other advanced features.

ddd is just a front end to gdb.

ddd sucks. Its one of the ugliest guis ever made IMO.
I'd assume that one would look for functionality and ease of use of the UI,
in a debugger if nowhere else, not it's eye-candy effect. Where do you find
DDD lacking, as far as ease of use is concerned?

Jul 25 '07 #44

P: n/a
Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites:
In article <lc*********************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites
>>If they have a commercial interest in it,

No.... An interest (or bias) whether commercial or not.
That is not practical. We cannot declare all our biases. Most will
be unconscious biases anyway. Careful reading of the arguments made
in a posting (and in the poster's history) are usually a better
indication than requiring public declarations.
>they ought to declare that
when recommending it. If they're merely interested in it, that isn't
the same thing. But if they stand to gain money from its promotion,
then it is reasonable to deduce that their advice may not be impartial,
so yes, you're right, they should declare an interest.

The FOSS Devotees have an irrational, religious support for FOSS and
this should ALWAYS be declared weather or not money changes hands.
I would have thought that it would be obvious from the postings when
an irrational, religious, support is being expressed -- just as it will
be obvious when rational and well-argued support is presented.
The same as EVERYONE who touts GCC and Linux who has an interest in
it.
Of course, and that is obvious from the touting is it not? What more
could you want?

If I say "X is a great supplier of Y" I am obviously biased (I am
offering not evidence or argument) but I think it makes a difference
to the way one reads this bias if I then say "BTW, I get 10% of every
new sale of X makes". If am obliged, as you would have me be, to add
"BTW, I am an irrational devotee of the way X does things" I don't
think readers get any more than they had already.

--
Ben.
Jul 25 '07 #45

P: n/a
Chris Hills said:
In article <lc*********************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites
>>Chris Hills said:
<snip>
>>>
There are many FOSS Detotees on here who push FOSS without declaring
an
interest.

If they have a commercial interest in it,

No.... An interest (or bias) whether commercial or not.
Fine by me. I now state, for the record, that I currently have no
commercial interest in any C compiler, nor have I ever had such an
interest. Neither do I have a "religious" interest in any compiler. I
have used, and enjoyed using, gcc, Visual C, Borland C (and Turbo C),
LE370, C/370, Digital Mars, and one or two others that I don't recall.
I don't *care* what compiler I use, most of the time. It's of no
interest whatsoever to me. Yes, I like the idea of FOSS (if that means
what I think it means), but I also recognise that people have the right
to charge for their software if they wish, and I have no problem with
that. I am not "religiously" devoted to FOSS. I have written software
to sell, and I've written software to give away, and I don't have any
particular axe to grind in either direction.

<snip>
The FOSS Devotees have an irrational, religious support for FOSS and
this should ALWAYS be declared weather or not money changes hands.
Fine - by all means point this out if you think it relevant in the
various threads where the issue may arise.

<snip>
>>gcc is OT too. Occasionally, I answer questions about gcc (not often,
of course because it's OT) but then occasionally I answer questions
about Visual C (again, not often, because it's OT). The fact that we
occasionally see OT answers about gcc in here does not make gcc
topical.

I have noticed that whilst the vast majority of the time questions on
any compiler other than Gcc gets slamed for being OT it is not the
same for GCC. There are several Gcc threads running on clc now
You have every right to point out that such threads are off-topic. Do
you? If not, you are part of the precipitate. If you care to do a
minimal amount of research, you will note that I have pointed out the
non-topicality of gcc threads on a number of occasions.

<snip>
As usual FOSS Devotees are biased and manipulate the truth for a
distorted view of reality.
Since I'm not a "FOSS Devotee", I will leave it to those who are to
defend themselves against that charge, should they wish so to do.
It is possible to get lcc-win32 and gcc for free or pay for both.
YUet
you only attack lcc-win32. Typical of FOSS Devotees
Check your facts. Yes, I have praised Linux and dissed Windows on
occasion, but on the other hand I have also pointed out that
Microsoft's C compiler is actually very good, and that Windows
programming is very enjoyable. FOSS Devotee? Sure about that?

<snip>
>>[...] So I decided that companies that use my work
in a commercial environment should pay for the product they get. What
is wrong with this?" (This particular quote is taken from 17 Apr
2003.)

Nothing, of course, is wrong with that, but it certainly demonstrates
that he does sell lcc-win32,

Under some conditions just as Linux and Gcc is availible on commercial
packages. However you can obtain lcc-win32 for free and there is no
need for the vast majority of users to pay anything, just like FOSS
users
If those who stand to make money from gcc touted it here, they'd be
acting in just as bad a way as Mr Navia. As far as I'm aware, however,
they don't. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Jul 25 '07 #46

P: n/a
Chris Hills said:

<snip>
Incidentally I have no idea how good or bad lcc-win32 is. That is not
what is being argued here. It is just being smeared by FOSS people
No, it isn't. The criticism is not against lcc-win32 but against its
promotion in a technical newsgroup by the one person who has most to
gain from its widespread use. And it isn't just "FOSS people" who are
making this criticism. I am not a "FOSS people", for instance. I am a
programmer who *sometimes* sells software and *sometimes* gives it
away.

Please check your facts before tarring all of Mr Navia's many critics
with the same brush.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Jul 25 '07 #47

P: n/a
Chris Hills said:
In article <lc*********************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites
>>Chris Hills said:

<snip>
>>Just like GCC is a C-like compiler. NOT a C compiler

How so? I put C in, and object code comes out. It walks like a C
compiler, swims like a C compiler, and quacks like a C compiler.

So it is fully C99 compliant?
No, you know it isn't, but it does conform to C99 *to the extent that I
need it to* - in other words, it conforms to C90. Since I write in the
common subset of C90 and C99, it is as conforming as I could possibly
wish for.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Jul 25 '07 #48

P: n/a
Richard wrote:
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrites:
>On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:38:51 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
>>Frodo Baggins wrote:
Please don't flame me, but what's wrong with emacs/gcc/gdb as a
development environment? Sure, a bit of work with glue/polish may be
needed.

Regards,
Frodo B

"A bit of work with glue/polish" yeah...

o gcc is one of the slowest compilers I have ever used.
It keeps getting slower at each new version.
You have a different experience to me. We use gcc for a fairly
enormous set of systems at work which we compile for Windows, Solaris
and RHEL, and gcc not noticeably slower than MSVC on Linux (on Solaris
its a dog but thats a /solaris/ problem, not a gcc one...).
>> o gdb is a pile of shit.
Hardly. gdb simply isn't a visual gui debugger. If you want that,
there are tools for linux.

Nearly all of which are rubbish. Eclipse might change that. DDD is a joke.
I would underscore that sentence.

I have used them all (kdevelop debugger, ddd, etc etc) and they all are
just GUI front ends to gdb, presenting you with a SUBSET of the
capabilities of gdb.

For instance, some of them will not allow you to view the registers,
or some of them will not allow you to see the disassembly.

Most of them do not allow "Set next statement", even if gdb can
do that with some obscure command.

They add some bugs to gdb, that even if it is a shit, it has only
few bugs.

And please, do not tell me that "I can report bugs" to the gdb
people.

I found a bug in gdb, fixed it, and send them the fix in the
corresponding gnu "gdb" group.

I never received even an acknowledgment that my fix was received.

jacob

Jul 25 '07 #49

P: n/a
santosh wrote:
Richard wrote:
>user923005 <dc*****@connx.comwrites:
>>On Jul 24, 9:46 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrote:
Frodo Baggins said:

<snip>

Please don't flame me, but what's wrong with emacs/gcc/gdb as a
development environment?
To put it bluntly: emacs.

Just s/emacs/vim/ and you're rolling.
I like GCC with Eclipse and the CDT. I also prefer DDD to GDB.
GCC 4.x has profile guided optimization and other advanced features.
ddd is just a front end to gdb.

ddd sucks. Its one of the ugliest guis ever made IMO.

I'd assume that one would look for functionality and ease of use of the UI,
in a debugger if nowhere else, not it's eye-candy effect. Where do you find
DDD lacking, as far as ease of use is concerned?
ddd is not able to do anything better than gdb. It is dead since
5-6 years (i.e. no longer maintained) and it has the ability of
crashing an X server, what is already a feat for a user program.

But it has some things ok:

o it displays the program text.
o it can display disassembly
o it displays the registers
o it gives you access to gdb, so you can use it for the
commands the GUI doesn't implement.

Of course there is no go to definition, no automatic variable
display, no restart, etc etc. But this is obvious. It is just
gdb.

jacob
Jul 25 '07 #50

244 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.