A good compiler

[Ajinkya]

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

[pete]

Default User wrote:

>
Mark McIntyre wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:59:53 +0530, in comp.lang.c , santosh
<sa*********@gmail.comwrote:

The C Standard explicitly permits implementations
to emit as many diagnostics as they deem fit, over and above what
are required by it.

Sure - but I suspect most people here would agree that any compiler
that emits diagnostics with valid code is screwed up.

Err, define "valid code" first.

My compiler emits some warnings for "valid code".

I get an "expression is constant" warning
for using a do{}while(0) macro.
I don't like that warning.

I get a warning about assignment with: if (a = 0)
That warning has been appropriate for me on occassion.

My compiler gives me a warning advocating the cast here:
byte = (char)(cond ? '0' : '1');
I don't like that warning.

--
pete

[Keith Thompson]

Denis Kasak <de************************@gmail.comwrites:

Chris Hills wrote:

>In article <n5************@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kb********@gmail.comwrites

>>[snips]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:54:31 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:

It's blindingly obvious what his relationship is when you go to the
lcc-win32 website to get the FREE download of the compiler and other
tools.

It is defiantly NOT commercial but FREE software (if not open source)

"This software is not freeware,

It is. It is just not FOSS

Apparently, you know better than the author.

This appears to be a disagreement over the meaning of the word
"freeware", not over the facts regarding lcc-win32. I suggest that it
is neither possible nor useful to settle it here.

--
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"

[Denis Kasak]

Keith Thompson wrote:

Denis Kasak <de************************@gmail.comwrites:

>Chris Hills wrote:

>>In article <n5************@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kb********@gmail.comwrites
[snips]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:54:31 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:

It's blindingly obvious what his relationship is when you go to the
lcc-win32 website to get the FREE download of the compiler and other
tools.
>
It is defiantly NOT commercial but FREE software (if not open source)
"This software is not freeware,
It is. It is just not FOSS

Apparently, you know better than the author.

This appears to be a disagreement over the meaning of the word
"freeware", not over the facts regarding lcc-win32. I suggest that it
is neither possible nor useful to settle it here.

Agreed. The whole thread has gone out of hand, I would dare say, to the
point of futility and beating a dead horse.

--
Denis Kasak

[Richard Bos]

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrote:

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:18:57 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:

Only pure linux will save us from the evil empire.

Yeah, right, and Elvis is alive and living in Slough.

All the more reason for the friendly bombs to fall.

Richard

[Richard Bos]

jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

"This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia. It's
free for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you have to have
to buy a licence."

Yes. And so what? It is free for non commercial use.

Then it's not free, is it? More to the point, then you _do_ have a
financial incentive in plugging it as much as possible, and all your
posts here advocating its use and its shiny! extensions are unsolicited
commercial posts. Knowing this, I am now seriously tempted to report you
to your ISP.

Richard

[Richard Bos]

Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrote:

In article <iv************@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kb********@gmail.comwrites

[snips]

>>Mr Navia, however, is in a different position. He is touting a product.

A FREE product.

"This software is not freeware,

It is freeware it is just not FOSS. There are many types of licens fro
free SW.

it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia.

Is this his crime?

It's
free for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you have to have
to buy a licence."

So what?

So it is _not_ actually freeware. It's shareware.

Richard

[Chris Hills]

In article <lq********************************@4ax.com>, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.netwrites

>On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:59:53 +0530, in comp.lang.c , santosh
<sa*********@gmail.comwrote:

>>Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

>>Excuse me? A compiler that makes me jump through hoops just to compile
_correct_ code without whining and bitching? It's broken. Badly, badly
broken.

That's just your opinion.

Not /just/ his opinion.

>>The C Standard explicitly permits implementations
to emit as many diagnostics as they deem fit, over and above what are
required by it.

Sure - but I suspect most people here would agree that any compiler
that emits diagnostics with valid code is screwed up.

That's what most variants of lint do....

>
Otherwise where do we draw the line ?

warning: "int" - you should use either short or long (or possibly long
long) as the size of an int is platform dependent and your code will
be hosed when you port to a 128-bit platform..

warning: 's' - you do realise this has different sizes in C and C++

Looks like static analysis to me.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Chris Hills]

In article <uY*********************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites

>Chris Hills said:

>In article <QL******************************@bt.com>, Richard
Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites

<snip>

>>>Perhaps you're right, and [Mr Navia] is mistaken in thinking that he
charges for his product. From his Web site:

"if you use it professionally you have to have to buy a licence."
[sic]

Is he wrong, then?

It's free to use otherwise.

Oh dear, Chris - so you're saying it's free except when it isn't? Fine,
but I think we kind of knew that already. Clearly, he derives (or is
trying to derive) an income from it.

Exactly the same as Linux
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Chris Hills]

In article <46****************@news.xs4all.nl>, Richard Bos
<rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nlwrites

>Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrote:

>In article <iv************@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kb********@gmail.comwrites

>[snips]

Mr Navia, however, is in a different position. He is touting a product.

A FREE product.

"This software is not freeware,

It is freeware it is just not FOSS. There are many types of licens fro
free SW.

it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia.

Is this his crime?

>It's
free for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you have to have
to buy a licence."

So what?

So it is _not_ actually freeware. It's shareware.

So what are the versions of Linux and Gcc you have to pay for?

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

[Ian Collins]

Chris Hills wrote:

>
So what are the versions of Linux and Gcc you have to pay for?

Do we care? Why all the talk about Linux? Anyone would think it's the
only free opensource OS out there.

--
Ian Collins.

[Richard Bos]

Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrote:

In article <46****************@news.xs4all.nl>, Richard Bos
<rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nlwrites

Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrote:

In article <iv************@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kb********@gmail.comwrites
[snips]

Mr Navia, however, is in a different position. He is touting a product.

A FREE product.

"This software is not freeware,
It is freeware it is just not FOSS. There are many types of licens fro
free SW.

it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia.

Is this his crime?

It's free for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you have
to have to buy a licence."

So what?

So it is _not_ actually freeware. It's shareware.

So what are the versions of Linux and Gcc you have to pay for?

None. You may have to pay for a nice package and a printed manual, but
nobody, regardless of what business you are in, has to pay for Linux or
gcc _itself_.
Besides, gcc is not the point. Nobody is advertising gcc here. jacob
_is_ posting unsolicited commercial posts about his compiler, which he
does derive income from.

Richard

[jacob navia]

Chris Hills wrote:

In article <46****************@news.xs4all.nl>, Richard Bos
<rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nlwrites

>Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrote:

>>In article <iv************@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kb********@gmail.comwrites
[snips]

Mr Navia, however, is in a different position. He is touting a
product.

A FREE product.

"This software is not freeware,
It is freeware it is just not FOSS. There are many types of licens fro
free SW.

it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia.

Is this his crime?

It's
free for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you have
to have
to buy a licence."

So what?

So it is _not_ actually freeware. It's shareware.

So what are the versions of Linux and Gcc you have to pay for?

For instance this ones:
Red Hat Enterprise Linux Advanced Platform
Standard Subscription 1 year 12x5 phone support, 1 year web, unlimited
incidents 1 499 $
Premium Subscription 1 year 24x7 phone support, 1 year web, unlimited
incidents 2 499 $
Raleigh, NC (Business Wire) - June 28, 2006 - Red Hat, Inc.
(NASDAQ:RHAT), the world's leading provider of open source solutions to
the enterprise, today announced financial results for the first quarter
of its fiscal 2007 year.

Total revenue for the quarter was $84.0 million, an increase of 38% from
the year ago quarter and 7% from the prior quarter. Subscription revenue
was $71.5 million, up 45% year-over-year and 7% sequentially.

[Keith Thompson]

Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites:
[...]

>>Oh dear, Chris - so you're saying it's free except when it isn't? Fine,
but I think we kind of knew that already. Clearly, he derives (or is
trying to derive) an income from it.

Exactly the same as Linux

Not *exactly* the same, but concede that it's close enough for our
purposes.

The difference is that Linus Torvalds, and the folks at Red Hat, and
the employees, owners, etc., of the companies that produce all the
other Linux distributions *don't advertise them in comp.lang.c*.

--
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"

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:18:47 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:

In article <ss************@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kb********@gmail.comwrites

>>[snips]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:24:24 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

>>>You keep saying it is free, when he goes out of his way to say otherwise.
Since it's his product, I suspect I'll believe him, rather than you.

It is free for non commercial use. What else do you want?

For someone around here to stop lying by saying "It's free" when it isn't;
it is only occasionally free.

Can you either back up that statement or withdraw it...

Already did, three times over:

Once by quoting the relevant text from the site;
Once by having Navia admit he uses it for revenue generation, and...

Jacob how many free downloads compared to paid ones (as a %)

....by _you_ admitting it's sold for money.

So, we're all clear on this; it's a for-profit product, which he hawks
here instead of doing the proper thing and using proper marketing
channels. That makes him a spammer - and anyone who offers a blanket
"it's free" a liar.

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:16:28 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:

In article <n5************@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kb********@gmail.comwrites

>>[snips]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:54:31 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:

>>It's blindingly obvious what his relationship is when you go to the
lcc-win32 website to get the FREE download of the compiler and other
tools.

It is defiantly NOT commercial but FREE software (if not open source)

"This software is not freeware,

It is. It is just not FOSS

It is? Fine; where do I get my legitimate free copy to use commercially?

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:14:51 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

>>
"This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia. It's
free for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you have to have
to buy a licence."

Yes. And so what? It is free for non commercial use.

So where do I get legitimate free copies for commercial use? If it isn't
free across the board, then all you're doing with it here is a glorified
sales pitch, in a forum where advertising doesn't belong and isn't wanted
- in short, you're a spammer.

Who would want to use a product offered by such degenerate low-lifes
as spammers isn't clear, but it sure as heck isn't me.

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:47:05 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:

>>So it is _not_ actually freeware. It's shareware.

So what are the versions of Linux and Gcc you have to pay for?

*What* are they? Don't know, don't care. The relevant point is *where*
are they, and more specifically, noting that they are *not* here, being
flaunted by their developers for financial gain.

Navia's a spammer, plain and simple. One hopes his account will be yanked
for abuse.

[jacob navia]

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:14:51 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

>Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

>>"This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia. It's
free for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you have to have
to buy a licence."

Yes. And so what? It is free for non commercial use.

So where do I get legitimate free copies for commercial use? If it isn't
free across the board, then all you're doing with it here is a glorified
sales pitch, in a forum where advertising doesn't belong and isn't wanted
- in short, you're a spammer.

Who would want to use a product offered by such degenerate low-lifes
as spammers isn't clear, but it sure as heck isn't me.

Excuse me. I will add a new clause.

It is free for non commercial use except for Mr Bjarnason.

Happy?

And please put me in your killfile, so you can safely ignore
posts from such a "low life" as me.

[jacob navia]

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

[snips]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:47:05 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:

>>So it is _not_ actually freeware. It's shareware.

So what are the versions of Linux and Gcc you have to pay for?

*What* are they? Don't know, don't care. The relevant point is *where*
are they, and more specifically, noting that they are *not* here,

A search for "linux" in the *subject* line in comp.lang.c
yields 48 hits in my machine...

Not searching of course all those that have
linux related material in the text!

being
flaunted by their developers for financial gain.

Navia's a spammer, plain and simple. One hopes his account will be yanked
for abuse.

You can always hope :-)

A search for lcc-win32 in the subject line yields zero.

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

In article <uY*********************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites

>>
Clearly, [Mr Navia] derives (or is trying to derive) an income
from [lcc-win32].

Exactly the same as Linux

Are you saying Mr Navia derives an income from the sale or support of
Linux? Or that I do? Or that someone else in clc is? If none of these,
how is it relevant?

--
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

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

<snip>

And please put me in your killfile, so you can safely ignore
posts from such a "low life" as me.

It is, of course, to Mr Navia's commercial advantage for as many of his
critics as possible to killfile him. No doubt this is why he encourages
them so to do.

--
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

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

A search for "linux" in the *subject* line in comp.lang.c
yields 48 hits in my machine...

So what? Newbies asking Linux questions is hardly a new phenomenon here.
Nor are redirections of such newbies to more appropriate groups.

--
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

[Rui Maciel]

Chris Hills wrote:

Can you either back up that statement or withdraw it...

Jacob how many free downloads compared to paid ones (as a %)

I think you will find it is usually free and occasionally paid for.

In that case it is easy to see that it isn't actually free ware, is it? It
is, mind you, occasionally free ware. Which isn't the same as free ware, in
the true sense of the word and not a bastardized interpretation of it. In
fact, in some countries any person can use every software product under the
sun without buying anything or paying any license, as long as it's for
personal use only. That means that in those countries, which follow the
french tradition of copyright, every software product should be considered
freeware. That doesn't make sense.

Therefore it is easy to see that that Kelsey Bjarnason is right on this one.
Freeware is supposed to be free, not X% free and only under certain
circunstances.
Rui Maciel

[Rui Maciel]

Chris Hills wrote:

Can you either back up that statement or withdraw it...

Jacob how many free downloads compared to paid ones (as a %)

I think you will find it is usually free and occasionally paid for.

In that case it is easy to see that it isn't actually free ware, is it? It
is, mind you, occasionally free ware. Which isn't the same as free ware, in
the true sense of the word and not a bastardized interpretation of it. In
fact, in some countries any person can use every software product under the
sun without buying anything or paying any license, as long as it's for
personal use only. That means that in those countries, which follow the
french tradition of copyright, every software product should be considered
freeware. That doesn't make sense.

Therefore it is easy to see that that Kelsey Bjarnason is right on this one.
Freeware is supposed to be free, not X% free and only under certain
circunstances.
Rui Maciel

[Richard]

Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

jacob navia said:

<snip>

>And please put me in your killfile, so you can safely ignore
posts from such a "low life" as me.

It is, of course, to Mr Navia's commercial advantage for as many of his
critics as possible to killfile him. No doubt this is why he encourages
them so to do.

Calling people "Mr" doesn't add any credence to your ridiculously
puerile and vindictive witch hunts.

Interestingly enough, I see you advertise your commercial licenses for
your code on your web page. To which you link with every post.

,----
| You will also find a copy of my CLINT library, which is available under
| the GPL. (It is available on a commercial basis as well, in case you'd
| prefer not to be bound by the GPL.)
`----

So not much difference from Jacob then.

Except you openly solicit payment:

,----
| 3) The "we did a deal" licence, which is much less restrictive than the
| GPL, but which involves contacting me and sending me money. To use the
| library "as is" on a non-exclusive commercial basis, with no obligation
| to release your own source code to the Open Source community, will cost
| you 150 (one hundred and fifty pounds sterling) per computer on
| which the library is installed (for the current version, 1.0i; future
| releases will be more expensive). Contact me for details of how to make
| payment. This fee does not include support; I am prepared to support the
| library, of course, but the fee I will charge you for that depends on
| just how much support you need.
`----

Nice page on portability btw.

[Richard Heathfield]

Richard said:

<snip>

As usual, this has gone totally too far and the attempts to discredit
Jacob are, frankly, rather pathetic and misplaced.

Nobody is trying to discredit Jacob. He is doing that himself. We are
trying to help him to *stop* discrediting himself.

--
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

[Ben Bacarisse]

Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrites:

Ben Bacarisse <be********@bsb.me.ukwrites:

>Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrites:

>>You /do/ realise the
relationship between JN and lcc-win32 I presume?

Yes, I think I do.

What about the fact that many people can use it for free? How does that
equate any more differently to someone like CBFalconer constantly
offering his "C libraries"?

I am quote happy with both terms of use.

As usual, this has gone totally too far and the attempts to discredit
Jacob are, frankly, rather pathetic and misplaced.

I have no desire to discredit Jacob. I was discrediting the idea that
somehow we should all declare our "biases". I prefer people to up
front about their interests, but I won't complain about lapses unless
I think there is some attempt at deception. Personally, I don't think
there was here.

--
Ben.

[mmcconnell17704]

test.c(7) : warning C4996: 'strcpy': This function or variable may be
unsafe. Consider using strcpy_s instead.

I just suppress this warning. On the command line, add /wd4996

[Harald van =?UTF-8?B?RMSzaw==?=]

Flash Gordon wrote:

Harald van Dijk wrote, On 26/07/07 18:00:

>jacob navia wrote:

>>Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
[snips]

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 09:54:31 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:

It's blindingly obvious what his relationship is when you go to the
lcc-win32 website to get the FREE download of the compiler and other
tools.
>
It is defiantly NOT commercial but FREE software (if not open source)
"This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia. It's
free for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you have to
have to buy a licence."

You keep saying it is free, when he goes out of his way to say
otherwise. Since it's his product, I suspect I'll believe him, rather
than you.
It is free for non commercial use. What else do you want?

Cygwin is free for non commercial use. If you want commercial use
you have to buy a license from redhat.

You are mistaken. Cygwin is free for both non-commercial and commercial
use.

Unless they have changed the license since I investigated it a few years
back it depends on the type of commercial use. You cannot distribute a
closed source program linked against the Cygwin DLL without paying a
license fee.

There are restrictions on distribution, and those restrictions affect both
commercial and non-commercial software, and affect both open and closed
source software. There are no restrictions whatsoever on use.

[Mark McIntyre]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 06:23:30 GMT, in comp.lang.c ,
rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) wrote:

>Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrote:

>On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:18:57 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:

>Only pure linux will save us from the evil empire.

Yeah, right, and Elvis is alive and living in Slough.

All the more reason for the friendly bombs to fall.

:-)
--
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

[Mark McIntyre]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:42:02 +1200, in comp.lang.c , Ian Collins
<ia******@hotmail.comwrote:

>Mark McIntyre wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:18:57 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:

>>Only pure linux will save us from the evil empire.

Yeah, right, and Elvis is alive and living in Slough.

I thought it was Area 51.

I heard he moved to Calais after reading something in the paper about
the good burghers...

I'll get me coat.
--
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

[Mark McIntyre]

On 26 Jul 2007 23:07:10 GMT, in comp.lang.c , "Default User"
<de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

>Mark McIntyre wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:59:53 +0530, in comp.lang.c , santosh
<sa*********@gmail.comwrote:

The C Standard explicitly permits implementations
to emit as many diagnostics as they deem fit, over and above what
are required by it.

Sure - but I suspect most people here would agree that any compiler
that emits diagnostics with valid code is screwed up.

Err, define "valid code" first.

)Must I do everything round here? :=)

A compiler that emits a stack of diagnostics for the canonical "hello
world" programme needs taking out and shooting.
--
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

[Mark McIntyre]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:15:25 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:

>Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

>[snips]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:47:05 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:

>>>So it is _not_ actually freeware. It's shareware.
So what are the versions of Linux and Gcc you have to pay for?

*What* are they? Don't know, don't care. The relevant point is *where*
are they, and more specifically, noting that they are *not* here,

A search for "linux" in the *subject* line in comp.lang.c
yields 48 hits in my machine...

most of which will be *you*, posting in this thread. The balance will
be noobs asking offtopic questions.

What was it they say about statistics?

>A search for lcc-win32 in the subject line yields zero.

Inevitably, since you sneak it into the bodies of other people's
posts.

By the way these meaningless stats indicate that either you're very
naive or incredibly weaselly. I suspect the latter, on past form.
--
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

[Keith Thompson]

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrites:
[...]

A compiler that emits a stack of diagnostics for the canonical "hello
world" programme needs taking out and shooting.

I agree with the underlying point, but *which* canonical "hello world"
program are you referring to? The one in K&R1:

main()
{
printf("hello, world\n");
}

invokes undefined behavior by calling printf with no prototype in
scope; it also (in C90, not C99) returns an undefined completion
status to the environment, and fails to declare the return type of
main (valid in C90, invalid in C99, considered poor style in both).

None of these are fair criticisms, of course, since K&R1 was published
in 1978, when these considerations didn't apply.

The version in K&R2 is identical apart from the addition of
'#include <stdio.h>'.

--
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"

[Keith Thompson]

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrites:

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:15:25 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:

[...]

>>A search for "linux" in the *subject* line in comp.lang.c
yields 48 hits in my machine...

most of which will be *you*, posting in this thread. The balance will
be noobs asking offtopic questions.

[...]

The subject of this thread is "a good compiler"; the word "linux"
doesn't appear.

I agree (without having checked) that most occurrences of "linux" in
subject headers here are either off-topic, or topical questions where
the poster provides more information than is necessary.

--
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"

[Mark McIntyre]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:36:15 -0700, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrote:

>Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrites:

>On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:15:25 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:

[...]

The subject of this thread is "a good compiler"; the word "linux"
doesn't appear.

True - thats a fair cop!
--
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]

Richard Bos said:

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrote:

>On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:18:57 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:

>Only pure linux will save us from the evil empire.

Yeah, right, and Elvis is alive and living in Slough.

All the more reason for the friendly bombs to fall.

The possibility that Elvis is living in Slough is not really an adequate
reason to bomb Slough. Slough, however, is a perfectly adequate reason
to bomb Slough.

--
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

[MOUNTAIN KING]

On Jul 22, 11:33 am, Ajinkya <[e-mail]:

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

U CAN TRY codeblocks opensource compiler

[MOUNTAIN KING]

On Jul 22, 11:38 am, santosh <[e-mail]:

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.

TRY IT IT IS ONE OF THE BEST

http://www.codeblocks.org/features.shtml

[santosh]

MOUNTAIN KING wrote:

On Jul 22, 11:38 am, santosh <[e-mail]:

>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.

TRY IT IT IS ONE OF THE BEST

http://www.codeblocks.org/features.shtml

Thanks but I can take my own descisions.

BTW, you've already advocated Code::Blocks three times in this thread, so
far. Don't you think that that's enough?

[Joachim Schmitz]

"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:6q*********************@bt.com...

Richard Bos said:

>Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrote:

>>On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:18:57 +0200, in comp.lang.c , jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:

Only pure linux will save us from the evil empire.

Yeah, right, and Elvis is alive and living in Slough.

All the more reason for the friendly bombs to fall.

The possibility that Elvis is living in Slough is not really an adequate
reason to bomb Slough. Slough, however, is a perfectly adequate reason
to bomb Slough.

Don't you think this is slightly off topic? ;-)

Bye, Jojo

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 09:43:36 -0700, mmcconnell17704 wrote:

>test.c(7) : warning C4996: 'strcpy': This function or variable may be
unsafe. Consider using strcpy_s instead.

I just suppress this warning. On the command line, add /wd4996

There should *be* no such warning, as the function is perfectly legitimate
and valid; warnings belong where things are iffy, questionable and/or
potentially incorrect. It's a QoI issue, and the Q of this I sucks in
that regard.

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:15:25 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

>[snips]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:47:05 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:

>>>So it is _not_ actually freeware. It's shareware.
So what are the versions of Linux and Gcc you have to pay for?

*What* are they? Don't know, don't care. The relevant point is *where*
are they, and more specifically, noting that they are *not* here,

A search for "linux" in the *subject* line in comp.lang.c
yields 48 hits in my machine...

Kindly show them in here flogging their wares for commercial gain. What?
You can't? Right, because those are mostly people asking how to do things
in Linux, not spammers.

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:05:28 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

>On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:14:51 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

>>Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
"This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob Navia. It's
free for non-commercial use, if you use it professionally you have to have
to buy a licence."

Yes. And so what? It is free for non commercial use.

So where do I get legitimate free copies for commercial use? If it isn't
free across the board, then all you're doing with it here is a glorified
sales pitch, in a forum where advertising doesn't belong and isn't wanted
- in short, you're a spammer.

Who would want to use a product offered by such degenerate low-lifes
as spammers isn't clear, but it sure as heck isn't me.

Excuse me. I will add a new clause.

It is free for non commercial use except for Mr Bjarnason.

Happy?

Nope - you're still here and, presumably, still spamming. My killfiling
you or not doesn't change that one iota.

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:41:23 +0200, Richard wrote:

>It is, of course, to Mr Navia's commercial advantage for as many of his
critics as possible to killfile him. No doubt this is why he encourages
them so to do.

Calling people "Mr" doesn't add any credence to your ridiculously
puerile and vindictive witch hunts.

Navia is a Mrs? A Ms?

[Chris Hills]

In article <m3************@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kb********@gmail.comwrites

>Why is this so hard to grasp? It has nothing to do with Navia or lcc or
CSS versus FLOSS; it is simply about not spamming commercial wares in the
forumn.

It is no more commercial than FOSS. Just a different license
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

In article <m3************@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kb********@gmail.comwrites

>>Why is this so hard to grasp? It has nothing to do with Navia or lcc
or CSS versus FLOSS; it is simply about not spamming commercial wares
in the forumn.

It is no more commercial than FOSS. Just a different license

So what? By all means s/commercial// if you like. This newsgroup is
about C, not about particular products, commercial or otherwise.

--
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

[Keith Thompson]

Kelsey Bjarnason <kb********@gmail.comwrites:
[...]

Why is this so hard to grasp? It has nothing to do with Navia or lcc or
CSS versus FLOSS; it is simply about not spamming commercial wares in the
forumn.

Well, not really. It's about persistent off-topic posts. The fact
that it's commercial isn't really relevant; the posts in question
would be just as inappropriate if lcc-win32 were open-source and
public-domain. (And, strictly speaking, it's not spam; spam is
identical articles cross-posted or multi-posted to multiple
newsgroups.)

--
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"

[jacob navia]

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

So? If the authors of gcc were in here constantly harping their product,
knowing full well that doing so is just cheap advertising for financial
gain, they'd be getting the same sort of response: advertise elsewhere.

Why is this so hard to grasp? It has nothing to do with Navia or lcc or
CSS versus FLOSS; it is simply about not spamming commercial wares in the
forumn.

Can't you READ at least?

The ORIGINAL POSTER question was:

< quote >

Can anyone suggest me a good compiler for(c/cpp) for windows?

< end quote>

I replied in the context of THAT question, I am not spamming
anyone!!!!

There were several answers, Microsoft (a known non commercial compiler
of course), gcc variations and mine.

But it is only MY entry that provokes polemic to no end!

No one of the other posters was attacked by promoting a commercial
compiler, or a semi-commercial one. No. It is only me.

[jacob navia]

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

>
Nope - you're still here and, presumably, still spamming. My killfiling
you or not doesn't change that one iota.

Can't you READ at least?

The ORIGINAL POSTER question was:

< quote >

Can anyone suggest me a good compiler for(c/cpp) for windows?

< end quote>

I replied in the context of THAT question, I am not spamming
anyone!!!!

There were several answers, Microsoft (a known non commercial compiler
of course), gcc variations and mine.

But it is only MY entry that provokes polemic to no end!

No one of the other posters was attacked by promoting a commercial
compiler, or a semi-commercial one. No. It is only me.