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.

[jacob navia]

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

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.

You haven't ever questioned the quality of strcpy isn't it?

It goes beyond your comprehension that strcpy is unsafe by design?

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

<snip>

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

You are free to point out that an article is off-topic. If you do not do
so yourself, you can hardly criticise others for failing to do so.

--
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:

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

>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.

You haven't ever questioned the quality of strcpy isn't it?

It goes beyond your comprehension that strcpy is unsafe by design?

The strcpy function is no more unsafe than any other power tool. Yes, it
requires careful handling, but then so do many functions. Programming
is a difficult game to play well.

In practice, memcpy is often a better bet than strcpy - but not always.
The strcpy function still has its place.

--
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

[Chris Hills]

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

>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.

Then stop going on about lcc-win It is the only one you pick on.
It cost no one anything to download and try.
If they like it or not it is up to them.

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

[Keith Thompson]

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

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

>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.

You haven't ever questioned the quality of strcpy isn't it?

It goes beyond your comprehension that strcpy is unsafe by design?

Nonsense. It can be used unsafely, but (unlike, say gets), strcpy can
be used perfectly safely. You just have to make sure that the target
array is big enough to hold the source string, which is easy enough to
do.

--
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"

[Chris Hills]

In article <46**********************@news.orange.fr>, jacob navia
<ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites

>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.

I agree. Incidentally I recommended the MS compiler but I have no
interest in it commercial or otherwise.

However the gcc varients were suggested by members o the FOSS community
who clearly have an interest (though not a direct commercial one) in GCC

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

That is what annoys me. I think I have often argued against you on
things but I agree with you in this case.

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

Or any compiler for that matter.

The problem seems to be you are advertising a compiler that is one you
produce. Therefore you can get around that by having a sig that says I
produce Lcc-win32 compiler with the URL. Then EVERYONE knows you "have
an interest"
BTW I sell compilers and supply FREE software & source code (that isn't
FOSS) Also I have other interest that I don't usually advertise.

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

[Chris Hills]

In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>, Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrites

>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.

That is a different matter. However there is no concusses on what is OT
or OT here. (Let's not start that again but agree to differ)

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.)

We have different definitions of spam. In the past it used to be
"advertising" that was multi posted but these days they get clever and
you can't tell if they are posting to multiple groups. They tend to
generate multiple posts to get around it.

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

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

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

>>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.

Then stop going on about lcc-win It is the only one you pick on.

It is the only one that is constantly and remorsely plugged here by its
owner. Nevertheless, if you are bothered by other people mentioning
other compilers here, tell them so. If you can't be bothered to mention
the fact yourself, you can hardly blame others for not doing so.

It cost no one anything to download and try.
If they like it or not it is up to them.

What has that to do with the price of fish? There are a great many
products available for people to download and try at no cost. That
doesn't make those products topical in comp.lang.c.

--
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

[Chris Hills]

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

>jacob navia said:

>Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

>>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.

You haven't ever questioned the quality of strcpy isn't it?

It goes beyond your comprehension that strcpy is unsafe by design?

The strcpy function is no more unsafe than any other power tool. Yes, it
requires careful handling, but then so do many functions. Programming
is a difficult game to play well.

This gets us into the discussion about the "secure" library that MS has
pushed into an ISO Technical Report with their so-called safe
functions.....
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[jacob navia]

Keith Thompson wrote:

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

>Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

>>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.

You haven't ever questioned the quality of strcpy isn't it?

It goes beyond your comprehension that strcpy is unsafe by design?

Nonsense. It can be used unsafely, but (unlike, say gets), strcpy can
be used perfectly safely. You just have to make sure that the target
array is big enough to hold the source string, which is easy enough to
do.

Easy enough to do it once.

Or maybe twice...

But since C discards all array size information when passing a
pointer to a function, and C strings are very often
copied in buffers that are passed around, it is
highly unlikely that you will ALWAYS win and NEVER
make a mistake.

The problem with strcpy design is that it requires always
perfect code.

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

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

>>
The strcpy function is no more unsafe than any other power tool. Yes,
it requires careful handling, but then so do many functions.
Programming is a difficult game to play well.

This gets us into the discussion about the "secure" library that MS
has pushed into an ISO Technical Report with their so-called safe
functions.....

Er, indeed. But if I wanted someone to design a library of safe
functions for me, Microsoft wouldn't exactly leap to mind as my first
choice.

I wish I could be sure the ISO C committee would be of the same mind.

--
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

[jacob navia]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Chris Hills said:

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

>>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.

Then stop going on about lcc-win It is the only one you pick on.

It is the only one that is constantly and remorsely plugged here by its
owner. Nevertheless, if you are bothered by other people mentioning
other compilers here, tell them so. If you can't be bothered to mention
the fact yourself, you can hardly blame others for not doing so.

>It cost no one anything to download and try.
If they like it or not it is up to them.

What has that to do with the price of fish? There are a great many
products available for people to download and try at no cost. That
doesn't make those products topical in comp.lang.c.

BUT THIS THREAD WAS about:

< 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!!!!

HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE TO REPEAT THAT???

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

<snip>

But since C discards all array size information when passing a
pointer to a function,

No, it doesn't. It just doesn't explicitly pass that information to the
function of its own accord. This is the kind of silly thoughtless
comment that does you so much harm in clc. C *never* discards array
size information. The size of, and the number of elements in, an
in-scope array is *always* available via sizeof, and is *never*
discarded.

<snip>

The problem with strcpy design is that it requires always
perfect code.

Indeed, the problem with programming is that it requires perfection.

--
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>

BUT THIS THREAD WAS about:

< quote >

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

< end quote>

Yes, that's right. And the proper answer is: "You would get better
answers to this question by asking in a group where Windows programming
is discussed, such as comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32"

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

HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE TO REPEAT THAT???

Zero, for preference. Starting now, if you'd be so kind.

--
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]

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

Chris Hills said:

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

>>>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.

Then stop going on about lcc-win It is the only one you pick on.

It is the only one that is constantly and remorsely plugged here by its
owner. Nevertheless, if you are bothered by other people mentioning
other compilers here, tell them so. If you can't be bothered to mention
the fact yourself, you can hardly blame others for not doing so.

*blink* What an amazing attempt at a cover up.

>

>It cost no one anything to download and try.
If they like it or not it is up to them.

What has that to do with the price of fish? There are a great many
products available for people to download and try at no cost. That
doesn't make those products topical in comp.lang.c.

They are if someone asks for advice from seasoned C programmers and the
get some good answers. As happened in this case. Maybe someone is
looking for a good standards compliant compiler and IDE.

[Keith Thompson]

jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
[...]

BUT THIS THREAD WAS about:

< 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!!!!

HOW MANY TIMES I HAVE TO REPEAT THAT???

That was the original subject of this thread. I've looked over the
thread on Google Groups, but I lack the patience to read the whole
thing (again).

I would have no particular objection to your mentioning lcc-win32 in
the context of answering the original question. I may have missed
something, but I don't recall anyone complaining specifically about
that. (I would suggest that you acknowledge your connection to
lcc-win32 when you mention it.)

Unfortunately, the discussion has drifted considerably, to the point
that this thread has become mostly an argument about what is or is not
topical in this newsgroup. In the context of that discussion, a
number of people have commented on things you've posted *in other
threads*.

I think everyone knows by now that lcc-win32 is one of the C compilers
available for MS Windows. I suggest that any comments about whether
jacob's postings are topical should be made only in direct response to
those postings. The discussion here has become so vague that I don't
believe any resolution is possible.

--
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"

[Chris Hills]

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

>Chris Hills said:

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

>>>
The strcpy function is no more unsafe than any other power tool. Yes,
it requires careful handling, but then so do many functions.
Programming is a difficult game to play well.

This gets us into the discussion about the "secure" library that MS
has pushed into an ISO Technical Report with their so-called safe
functions.....

Er, indeed. But if I wanted someone to design a library of safe
functions for me, Microsoft wouldn't exactly leap to mind as my first
choice.

I wish I could be sure the ISO C committee would be of the same mind.

I was never happy about it.

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

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

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

>>[...] if I wanted someone to design a library of safe
functions for me, Microsoft wouldn't exactly leap to mind as my first
choice.

I wish I could be sure the ISO C committee would be of the same mind.

I was never happy about it.

You make it sound like it's already happened. Does this mean C is going
to get weighed down with a lot of Microjunk?

C99 was bad enough. How much damage do you think the language can stand
before it breaks under its own weight?

--
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

[Chris Hills]

Off list because this is political and my own personal views that may
not concur with other members of the ISO c panel

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

>>>[...] if I wanted someone to design a library of safe
functions for me, Microsoft wouldn't exactly leap to mind as my first
choice.

I wish I could be sure the ISO C committee would be of the same mind.

I was never happy about it.

You make it sound like it's already happened. Does this mean C is going
to get weighed down with a lot of Microjunk?

Yes. I argued against it from the outset over 5 years ago The Safe(r)
C/ Secure / etc lib proposal is a clever move. There is also one for
C++ Again largely put about by MS. The problem is that although it is
"only a TR" as MS keep pointing out "TRs invariably become part of the
standard" even is these don't the effect is the same dor the vast
majority of desktop programmers.

This means that [marketing speak] the MS C and C++ libraries are The
Standard for safe programming .... MS is leading the way etc.

Anyone who does not implement the Safe/secure libs in the TR can not
really be serious.... MS has of course already got them implemented.

MS is also going via ECMA to push the C++/CLI standard on a fast track
through ISO this has been stopped once but I fear in reality it is too
late.

>C99 was bad enough. How much damage do you think the language can stand
before it breaks under its own weight?

Too late it has happened.

However there is already discussion in some parts of the ISO C panel to
REMOVE parts of C99!! Yes the penny has finally dropped that too much
was added for small pressure groups and a lot has not been implemented
nor is ever likely to be by the majority...

We are now 9 years since the release and there is no sign that any time
soon the majority of the compiler vendors will do more than a partial
implementation.

In fact 4 years ago a group in the UK of which I was one and some of
whom were on the UK C panel, looked at cutting back C99 but we did not
have the time or resources to do it. We all had real lives and jobs to
do.

Now the main ISO C panel has woken up to the fact that C99 is not being
implemented in any seriousness by anyone. In fact as predicted about 5
years ago by Derek Jones the GCC standard (but NOT the compilers) would
become the major de-facto C standard.

A real mess. I can see there being several groups.

1 MS/desktop "C/C++" (I know c/c++ is not a real language :-) Using the
secure/safer libraries etc for the vast majority of desktop users and
"embedded XP users" Shirley an oxymoron. This will be "Standard C"
because they have God/Satan on their side depending on your viewpoint.
Also all the lawyers and marketing.

2 Embedded C (based around C95) for the vast majority of non desktop
users and will be called "C-like" by the pedants and C by embedded
users.

3 Gcc Users who will use Gcc syntax come hell or high water who don't
care what anyone else calls it because they have god on their side.

4 ISO C used by virtually no one. (Where then for Clc? )

Remember ISO BASIC....... that died after a similar onslaught by
VisualBasic.

I fear Standard ISO C will go the same way.

Does it matter if it does?

I have to look at this is some seriousness as we are gearing up to start
MISRA-C-3. Thus far we have been C90+A1+TC1+TC2 based..... we have been
contemplating moving to C99 but..... it is all a moving target.
Regards
Chris

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

[Flash Gordon]

jacob navia wrote, On 27/07/07 09:17:

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 $

Or you get exactly the same SW from another source (called CentOS) for
free and you can use it professionally and even sell it on if you can
find someone to buy it.

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.

Now point to the posts here by RedHat employees or shareholders
advocating one of the above. Advocating Fedora does not count since that
is free to download from RedHat.
--
Flash Gordon

[Chris Hills]

In article <8a************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>, Flash Gordon
<sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrites

>jacob navia wrote, On 27/07/07 09:17:
Now point to the posts here by RedHat employees or shareholders
advocating one of the above. Advocating Fedora does not count since
that is free to download from RedHat.

LCC-win is free to download and use. Like Fedora it has a license

show me the Fedora I can use, adapt and sell on without disclosing the
source?

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

[JT]

On Jul 30, 4:00 pm, Chris Hills <[e-mail]:

LCC-win is free to download and use
Like Fedora it has a license

Say my company wants me to write a short C
program to convert some legacy files
from old format to new format.

If I donwload Fedoca Core and install it on my company computer.
Then I download and use gcc to compile and run the C program.
That's legal.

If I download and use lcc-win to compile and run my C program
without paying Jacob first, then I've broken the law.

There is a HUGE HUGE HUGE difference between
the licenses of gcc/linux/freebsd/apache...
versus the license by Jacob Nadia

Is this clear enough?

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 23:32:25 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

It goes beyond your comprehension that strcpy is unsafe by design?

It is? Hmm. News to me. I've been using it for, well, 20 years give or
take, never had an issue with it. Wonder why that is?

Oh, yes - because, as with all tools, I learned how to use it properly.

strcpy is no more or less safe than most other functions, when used
properly. When used improperly, well, what do you expect if you let a
semi-educated chimp write code?

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

Richard Heathfield wrote:

jacob navia said:

<snip>

>No one of the other posters was attacked by promoting a commercial
compiler, or a semi-commercial one.

You are free to point out that an article is off-topic. If you do not do
so yourself, you can hardly criticise others for failing to do so.

Correct. He can however quite rightly criticise others for criticising him
when he believes he doesn't deserve it, and use the fact (not criticism)
that the complaints were directed at him alone as support for why he
doesn't deserve it.

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 23:31:16 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

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

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!

And of course, the response "Microsoft" was offered up by the Microsoft
sales department, right?

Oh... hmm... no, doesn't seem to be. So someone mentioning MS's compiler
was *not* (presumably) in a position to make financial gains by their
recommendations. You, by contrast, were - for them, it was a
recommendation, for you it's a sales pitch.

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 00:09:08 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

>Nonsense. It can be used unsafely, but (unlike, say gets), strcpy can
be used perfectly safely. You just have to make sure that the target
array is big enough to hold the source string, which is easy enough to
do.

Easy enough to do it once.

Or maybe twice...

But since C discards all array size information when passing a
pointer to a function

It does no such thing; it merely doesn't include it. It's readily
available to the caller, though, so not like you can't pass it if you need
it.

>, and C strings are very often
copied in buffers that are passed around, it is
highly unlikely that you will ALWAYS win and NEVER
make a mistake.

Lots of ways around this, but the simplest and most basic is proper
design. If you're the sort to code first, design later, fine, you're
going to get bit by this. That's what you get for bad programming
practices.

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:00:24 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:

In article <8a************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>, Flash Gordon
<sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrites

>>jacob navia wrote, On 27/07/07 09:17:
Now point to the posts here by RedHat employees or shareholders
advocating one of the above. Advocating Fedora does not count since
that is free to download from RedHat.

LCC-win is free to download and use.

Good. My company needs 50 copies for commercial use. It's free, right?

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 14:21:28 -0700, Keith Thompson wrote:

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.

Okay, perhaps, but it is particularly galling to have commercial
for-profit stuff flogged by its author who is apparently too slimy to use
proper advertising channels.

(And, strictly speaking, it's not spam; spam is
identical articles cross-posted or multi-posted to multiple
newsgroups.)

Depends on definitions, I guess; many groups regard *any* unsolicited
commercial input as spam, others regard it that way if the one so doing
has a financial interest, others if it happens repeatedly. Navia falls
under all three categories, so I brand his noise "spam".

[Chris Hills]

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

>[snips]

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 23:31:16 +0200, jacob navia wrote:

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

>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!

And of course, the response "Microsoft" was offered up by the Microsoft
sales department, right?

Oh... hmm... no, doesn't seem to be. So someone mentioning MS's compiler
was *not* (presumably) in a position to make financial gains by their
recommendations. You, by contrast, were - for them, it was a
recommendation, for you it's a sales pitch.

I recommended MS VC and I sell commercial compilers.

The MSVC 2005 Express is FREE to download and use for AFAIK non
commercial apps. Just like LCC-Win32

I did not recommend LCC-win32 but I don't understand all these
complaints about the author.

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

[Chris Hills]

In article <11**********************@i13g2000prf.googlegroups .com>, JT
<ja******@gmail.comwrites

>On Jul 30, 4:00 pm, Chris Hills <[e-mail]:

>LCC-win is free to download and use
Like Fedora it has a license

Say my company wants me to write a short C
program to convert some legacy files
from old format to new format.

If I donwload Fedoca Core and install it on my company computer.
Then I download and use gcc to compile and run the C program.
That's legal.

If I download and use lcc-win to compile and run my C program
without paying Jacob first, then I've broken the law.

There is a HUGE HUGE HUGE difference between
the licenses of gcc/linux/freebsd/apache...
versus the license by Jacob Nadia

Is this clear enough?

No I want to be able to modify GCC and supply it on without disclosing
my modified source. Is that clear enough?

Both Lcc-win and Gcc have restrictive licenses as does the MS VC-2005
Express I recommended. (BTW I sell compilers)

I did not recommend either Gcc or LCC-win32 however I can see no
objection to others recommending these free compilers which also have
license restrictions.

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

[Chris Hills]

In article <02************@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kb********@gmail.comwrites

>On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:00:24 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:

>In article <8a************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>, Flash Gordon
<sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrites

>>>jacob navia wrote, On 27/07/07 09:17:
Now point to the posts here by RedHat employees or shareholders
advocating one of the above. Advocating Fedora does not count since
that is free to download from RedHat.

LCC-win is free to download and use.

Good. My company needs 50 copies for commercial use. It's free, right?

My company wants to modfiy Gcc and supply it without releasing aNy of
the source that's OK right?

Why is no one complaining bitterly that I recommended MS VC 2005 Express
which is also free to download and use for non-commercial apps?

ALL these tools have licences which are restrictive in one way or
another.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[JT]

On Jul 30, 5:46 pm, Chris Hills <[e-mail]:

No I want to be able to modify GCC and supply it
on without disclosing my modified source.
Is that clear enough?
...
(BTW I sell compilers)

You never said that in this thread.
Now your point is finally clear.

Both Lcc-win and Gcc have restrictive licenses

But VERY DIFFERENT.
gcc's restriction only limits compiler writers such as you.
lcc-win32's restriction limits the bulk of C users.

[JT]

On Jul 30, 5:48 pm, Chris Hills <[e-mail]:

ALL these tools have licences which are restrictive
in one way or another.

"One way or another" is broad a stroke.
In corporate settings, the details are everything.

lcc-win32 is at a very extreme end of the spectrum.

gcc is at another very extreme end of the spectrum.

[Flash Gordon]

Chris Hills wrote, On 30/07/07 17:00:

In article <8a************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>, Flash Gordon
<sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrites

>jacob navia wrote, On 27/07/07 09:17:
Now point to the posts here by RedHat employees or shareholders
advocating one of the above. Advocating Fedora does not count since
that is free to download from RedHat.

LCC-win is free to download and use. Like Fedora it has a license

show me the Fedora I can use, adapt and sell on without disclosing the
source?

Show me the lcc-win32 I can download, use to build SW, and sell the
built SW. I can do that with Fedora.

Show me the RedHat share holders or employees pushing RedHat here.

Note I have no objection to Jacob suggesting lcc-win32 in response to a
request for suggestions for Windows C compilers. I object to a blanket
statement it is free, and I object to Jacob not stating that it is his
product when suggesting it.
--
Flash Gordon

[Chris Hills]

In article <11**********************@z28g2000prd.googlegroups .com>, JT
<ja******@gmail.comwrites

>On Jul 30, 5:46 pm, Chris Hills <[e-mail]:

>No I want to be able to modify GCC and supply it
on without disclosing my modified source.
Is that clear enough?
...
(BTW I sell compilers)

You never said that in this thread.

It wasn't relevant

>Now your point is finally clear.

How so? I recommended a free compiler.

>Both Lcc-win and Gcc have restrictive licenses

But VERY DIFFERENT.
gcc's restriction only limits compiler writers such as you.
lcc-win32's restriction limits the bulk of C users.

No, GPL limits as many people as the lcc-win32 license does unless you
have empirical evidence to the show otherwise.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Chris Hills]

In article <11*********************@z24g2000prh.googlegroups. com>, JT
<ja******@gmail.comwrites

>On Jul 30, 5:48 pm, Chris Hills <[e-mail]:

>ALL these tools have licences which are restrictive
in one way or another.

"One way or another" is broad a stroke.
In corporate settings, the details are everything.

lcc-win32 is at a very extreme end of the spectrum.

gcc is at another very extreme end of the spectrum.

Neither are at the extreme end. If the were they would not be at
diametric opposite ends of the same line.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Keith Thompson]

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

In article <8a************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>, Flash Gordon
<sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrites

>>jacob navia wrote, On 27/07/07 09:17:
Now point to the posts here by RedHat employees or shareholders
advocating one of the above. Advocating Fedora does not count since
that is free to download from RedHat.

LCC-win is free to download and use. Like Fedora it has a license

show me the Fedora I can use, adapt and sell on without disclosing the
source?

Surely even you can understand that this discussion should be
happening in a forum other than comp.lang.c (assuming it needs to
happen at all).

--
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]

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

jacob navia said:
<snip>

>No one of the other posters was attacked by promoting a commercial
compiler, or a semi-commercial one.

You are free to point out that an article is off-topic. If you do not do
so yourself, you can hardly criticise others for failing to do so.

I'm afraid he can. If he believes that promoting commercial or
semi-commercial compilers here is perfectly appropriate, then he has
no obligation to complain that anything else is off-topic, and he can
consistently complain both that his own advertisements are being
criticized inappropriately, and that the criticism is being applied
inconistently.

I believe his position is incorrect, but it's at least potentially
consistent.

And again, I suggest that any criticism of jacob's posts (or of anyone
else's) be reserved for direct responses to those posts. This
meta-discussion is a waste of time and bandwidth, not least because
it's become too difficult to be clear about just what behavior is
being criticized.

--
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"

[JT]

On Jul 30, 6:53 pm, Chris Hills <[e-mail]:

But VERY DIFFERENT.
gcc's restriction only limits compiler writers such as you.
lcc-win32's restriction limits the bulk of C users.

No, GPL limits as many people as the lcc-win32 license does unless you
have empirical evidence to the show otherwise.

Now you've changed your discussion
to complain about how GPL software in general
limits people.

Empirical evidence is not needed,
because the people using gcc to make a compiler
is STRICTLY a subset of the people using gcc AT ALL.

gcc disallows you to modify it then distribute without df.
gcc allows you to use it to compile commerical code of your own.

lcc-win32 disallows either

(df = "disclosure and/or fee")

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:48:10 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:

>>Good. My company needs 50 copies for commercial use. It's free, right?

My company wants to modfiy Gcc and supply it without releasing aNy of
the source that's OK right?

Nope.

Why is no one complaining bitterly that I recommended MS VC 2005 Express
which is also free to download and use for non-commercial apps?

Are you making money off the process? If so, you should stop; this is not
an advertising medium.

[Chris Hills]

In article <b1************@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kb********@gmail.comwrites

>[snips]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:48:10 +0100, Chris Hills wrote:

>>>Good. My company needs 50 copies for commercial use. It's free, right?

My company wants to modfiy Gcc and supply it without releasing aNy of
the source that's OK right?

Nope.

So Gcc has a restrictive license then....

>Why is no one complaining bitterly that I recommended MS VC 2005 Express
which is also free to download and use for non-commercial apps?

Are you making money off the process? If so, you should stop; this is not
an advertising medium.

Why is making money the only criteria here? The OP asked for a good
compiler for windows. Being free was not given as a requirement.

As it happens I don't sell any MS products. However MS VC 2005 E can be
used to support some software source code I do sell but is not
essential.

So for the OP: Lcc is a valid choice as much as gcc or MS VC 2005 E.....
ALL of which he can download for FREE and try out.

If the then wants gcc for free that is OK. It is also OK if he decided
to go for one of the 6000 USD compilers too. Or any in between even lcc.

So why this religious fanaticism against lcc but nothing else? It is
on FREE download for eval just like may other compilers.

I have recommended both free and commercial compilers. It depends onthe
application. However I do note that many FOSS devotees will recommend
gcc no matter what the situation.

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

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

<snip>

>
You are equivocating but like most FOSS devotees are blind to a
balanced argument.

Let's see whether you can see my balanced argument, then: we should have
no gcc advertisements in comp.lang.c, no lcc advertisements, no VC
advertisements, no Borland advertisements - in short, no compiler
advertisements at all. In fact, no advertisements of any kind - except
in properly constructed sig blocks, so that good newsreaders can spot
them and remove them automatically from followups.

(I note from comp.std.c, where my killfile was a little tardy in
blocking Mr Navia, that he has started putting a link to his site at
the bottom of every article. Now all he has to do is learn about sig
block delimiters. Sheesh - netiquette should take a few days or, at
most, weeks to learn. Not nine years.)

Where were we? Oh yes. C discussions are topical here. Compiler
advertisements are not.

Where a compiler recommendation is requested, that is a not unreasonable
question for comp.lang.c, but anyone with a financial or religious axe
to grind ought either to stay out of that discussion or at the very
least to declare their interest.

Frankly, I couldn't care less which compiler I use. On my C resources
Web page, I list several free compilers and several non-free compilers,
and I have no financial or religious interest in any of them. I like
some of them, sure, but I'm not interesting in compiler proselytism.
Any compiler that conforms at least to C90 will do fine for me.

So my own recommendation to the OP is that he finds at least two
compilers conforming to ISO/IEC 9899 (any version), each from a
different provider, and that he tests all his code on both. If one of
the compilers can be installed only on a mainframe, so much the better.

--
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

[Chris Hills]

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

>Chris Hills said:

<snip>

>>
You are equivocating but like most FOSS devotees are blind to a
balanced argument.

Let's see whether you can see my balanced argument, then: we should have
no gcc advertisements in comp.lang.c, no lcc advertisements, no VC
advertisements, no Borland advertisements - in short, no compiler
advertisements at all. In fact, no advertisements of any kind - except
in properly constructed sig blocks, so that good newsreaders can spot
them and remove them automatically from followups.

OK

>(I note from comp.std.c, where my killfile was a little tardy in
blocking Mr Navia, that he has started putting a link to his site at
the bottom of every article. Now all he has to do is learn about sig
block delimiters. Sheesh - netiquette should take a few days or, at
most, weeks to learn. Not nine years.)

Point taken. Perhaps if Navia puts it in his sig that will stop everyone
complaining ad infinitum. Then of course he advertises it in EVERY post
not just the ones where it is relevant.

>Where were we? Oh yes. C discussions are topical here. Compiler
advertisements are not.

The OP asked for compiler recommendations.

>Where a compiler recommendation is requested, that is a not unreasonable
question for comp.lang.c, but anyone with a financial or religious axe
to grind ought either to stay out of that discussion or at the very
least to declare their interest.

Declare an interest I agree. However this is as you say not just
financial interests.

>So my own recommendation to the OP is that he finds at least two
compilers conforming to ISO/IEC 9899 (any version), each from a
different provider, and that he tests all his code on both.

That's reasonable
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

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

<snip>

>>(I note from comp.std.c, where my killfile was a little tardy in
blocking Mr Navia, that he has started putting a link to his site at
the bottom of every article. Now all he has to do is learn about sig
block delimiters. Sheesh - netiquette should take a few days or, at
most, weeks to learn. Not nine years.)

Point taken. Perhaps if Navia puts it in his sig that will stop
everyone complaining ad infinitum. Then of course he advertises it in
EVERY post not just the ones where it is relevant.

That's entirely up to him, and nobody can reasonably complain about the
contents of a conforming sig block, introduced by a "-- \n" and
continuing for no more than four lines thereafter - no matter what
advertisements it contains. You link to your Web site in your sig
block, and I link to mine in mine. That's what they're for.

And you're right - then he'd be advertising lcc-win32 in every article
he posts. All he would then have to learn (apart from C, of course) is
how to avoid plugging it within the *body* of the article.

<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

[CBFalconer]

jacob navia wrote:

Keith Thompson wrote:

>jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:

.... snip ...

>>>
It goes beyond your comprehension that strcpy is unsafe by design?

Nonsense. It can be used unsafely, but (unlike, say gets),
strcpy can be used perfectly safely. You just have to make sure
that the target array is big enough to hold the source string,
which is easy enough to do.

Easy enough to do it once. Or maybe twice...

But since C discards all array size information when passing a
pointer to a function, and C strings are very often
copied in buffers that are passed around, it is
highly unlikely that you will ALWAYS win and NEVER
make a mistake.

The problem with strcpy design is that it requires always
perfect code.

No, it requires that the programmer be able to read the routine
description, and then it would be helpful if s/he could remember
the requirements, i.e. be capable of learning. The description is
easily found in N869, harder in N1124 (because that is in .pdf
format).

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
cbfalconer at maineline dot net

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[CBFalconer]

Chris Hills wrote:

>

.... snip ...

>
BTW I sell compilers and supply FREE software & source code (that
isn't FOSS) Also I have other interest that I don't usually
advertise.

You keep using that word "FOSS". What, if anything, does it mean?

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
cbfalconer at maineline dot net

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[CBFalconer]

jacob navia wrote:

>

.... snip ...

>
Can't you READ at least?
The ORIGINAL POSTER question was:

< quote >

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

.....

This is at least the third time you have posted this identical
reply in the past few hours. Consider using some restraint.

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
cbfalconer at maineline dot net

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[CBFalconer]

Ben Bacarisse wrote:

>

.... snip ...

>
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.

Actually I suspect that Jacob is a perfectly nice guy, with a
collection of misassumptions about Usenet and c.l.c. He also
displays an absolute genius for finding means to rub everybody the
wrong way, together with an apparent inability to learn anything
new.

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
cbfalconer at maineline dot net

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[CBFalconer]

Richard wrote:

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

.... snip ...

>>
What has that to do with the price of fish? There are a great many
products available for people to download and try at no cost. That
doesn't make those products topical in comp.lang.c.

They are if someone asks for advice from seasoned C programmers and
the get some good answers. As happened in this case. Maybe someone
is looking for a good standards compliant compiler and IDE.

In which case they should probably avoid lcc-win32 like the plague,
considering its many unusual (and standards contravening)
extensions. I may well be mistaken in this.

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
cbfalconer at maineline dot net

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[CBFalconer]

Chris Hills wrote:

JT <ja******@gmail.comwrites

.... snip ...

>

>But VERY DIFFERENT.
gcc's restriction only limits compiler writers such as you.
lcc-win32's restriction limits the bulk of C users.

No, GPL limits as many people as the lcc-win32 license does unless
you have empirical evidence to the show otherwise.

Oh, now reading the GPL license is "empirical evidence"?

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
cbfalconer at maineline dot net

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com