Compiler thats works in Windows 7

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by AK, Sep 30, 2011.

  1. AK

    AK Guest

    HI guys,

    Its been a really long time since I came back here and the reason is
    simply that I was working with Java when I started working. Now that I
    have entered a grad school, I am in the process of returning to C.

    So, heres the big question. Back in the days when I last used C, I
    used to use the Bloodshed Dev-C++ IDE that comes(or at-least used to)
    with the MIngw package. However, things have changed and my new laptop
    runs Windows 7. So, I am looking for a compiler(preferably an IDE)
    that I can use as I am re-learning C. I am hoping to get a compiler
    that sticks to the standards. So, any suggestions?

    Thanks
    Anoop
     
    AK, Sep 30, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. AK

    jacob navia Guest

    Le 30/09/11 10:44, AK a écrit :
    > HI guys,
    >
    > Its been a really long time since I came back here and the reason is
    > simply that I was working with Java when I started working. Now that I
    > have entered a grad school, I am in the process of returning to C.
    >
    > So, heres the big question. Back in the days when I last used C, I
    > used to use the Bloodshed Dev-C++ IDE that comes(or at-least used to)
    > with the MIngw package. However, things have changed and my new laptop
    > runs Windows 7. So, I am looking for a compiler(preferably an IDE)
    > that I can use as I am re-learning C. I am hoping to get a compiler
    > that sticks to the standards. So, any suggestions?
    >
    > Thanks
    > Anoop


    The lcc-win compiler implements most of C99. It has an IDE, windowed
    debugger, and it can be downloaded at no cost.

    http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32/
     
    jacob navia, Sep 30, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. AK

    Noob Guest

    Noob, Sep 30, 2011
    #3
  4. AK

    jacob navia Guest

    jacob navia, Sep 30, 2011
    #4
  5. On 9/30/2011 2:44 AM, AK wrote:
    > HI guys,
    >
    > Its been a really long time since I came back here and the reason is
    > simply that I was working with Java when I started working. Now that I
    > have entered a grad school, I am in the process of returning to C.
    >
    > So, heres the big question. Back in the days when I last used C, I
    > used to use the Bloodshed Dev-C++ IDE that comes(or at-least used to)
    > with the MIngw package. However, things have changed and my new laptop
    > runs Windows 7. So, I am looking for a compiler(preferably an IDE)
    > that I can use as I am re-learning C. I am hoping to get a compiler
    > that sticks to the standards. So, any suggestions?
    >
    > Thanks
    > Anoop



    If you're going to be coding exclusively in C, Code::Blocks is the best
    one, and is actively maintained. It is available for both win/linux
    platforms
    http://www.codeblocks.org/

    If you're going to be using a bit of c++ as well, download microsoft
    visual studio express edition (assuming windows) or go with code blocks
    (win/linux).

    Eclipse with CDT is good too. And you can program in a multitude of
    languages with one IDE. debugger integration is pretty good in eclipse
    too. so if you're gonna be coding in c, c++, java and want to learn
    python n stuff, + generate documentation and do a million other things
    from one place, I would suggest you get eclipse.

    http://www.eclipse.org
     
    Karthik Bharadwaj, Sep 30, 2011
    #5
  6. AK

    ImpalerCore Guest

    On Sep 30, 4:44 am, AK <> wrote:
    > HI guys,
    >
    > Its been a really long time since I came back here and the reason is
    > simply that I was working with Java when I started working. Now that I
    > have entered a grad school, I am in the process of returning to C.
    >
    > So, heres the big question. Back in the days when I last used C, I
    > used to use the Bloodshed Dev-C++ IDE that comes(or at-least used to)
    > with the MIngw package. However, things have changed and my new laptop
    > runs Windows 7. So, I am looking for a compiler(preferably an IDE)
    > that I can use as I am re-learning C. I am hoping to get a compiler
    > that sticks to the standards. So, any suggestions?


    Well, if you're going to *graduate* school, you must eschew the bonds
    of an IDE and learn to work with the tools from a more civilized era.
    That means vi, bash, make, sed, preferably on a unix workstation,
    although installing linux on a laptop is good as well; MinGW on
    windows is passible as an alternative with a unix compatible shell,
    but don't advertise that fact. Be sure to use -pedantic with gcc to
    ensure strict conformance; extensions are beneath you. All your
    programs should use a sophisticated but easy to use set of command-
    line options, or an interactive character-driver menu system; none of
    this fancy and non-standard GooEY stuff. Most importantly, remember
    that using a debugger is forbidden; use your intellect and scratch
    paper, and as a last resort if you absolutely have to, well placed
    print statements.

    It's imperative that you start reading the C90 and C99 standards now.
    Once you have a grasp on those documents, browse the usenet archives
    for comp.lang.c and comp.std.c to learn how to speak standardese. If
    one of your fellow students asks a mundane C question, the correct
    response is to quote chapter and verse from the appropriate place in
    the standard. Observe other more experienced members of this usenet
    group for how to articulate these answers. On a side note, stop using
    Google groups and invest in a newsgroup reader.

    Lastly, if capable, all graduate students who program should grow a
    beard. What do you see that's in common between Kernighan, Ritchie,
    Thompson, ...? You may ignore this requirement if you are female.

    Best regards,
    John D.
     
    ImpalerCore, Sep 30, 2011
    #6
  7. AK

    John Gordon Guest

    In <> ImpalerCore <> writes:

    > Well, if you're going to *graduate* school, you must eschew the bonds


    I smell a troll.

    --
    John Gordon A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
    B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
    -- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"
     
    John Gordon, Sep 30, 2011
    #7
  8. AK

    jacob navia Guest

    Le 30/09/11 15:41, Karthik Bharadwaj a écrit :
    >
    > If you're going to be using a bit of c++ as well, download microsoft
    > visual studio express edition (assuming windows) or go with code blocks
    > (win/linux).
    >


    That compiler doesn't support standard C. (C99)
     
    jacob navia, Sep 30, 2011
    #8
  9. AK

    Guest

    John Gordon <> wrote:
    > In <> ImpalerCore <> writes:
    >
    > > Well, if you're going to *graduate* school, you must eschew the bonds

    >
    > I smell a troll.


    Dwarf. Trolls don't have beards.
    --
    Larry Jones

    Pitiful. Just pitiful. -- Calvin
     
    , Sep 30, 2011
    #9
  10. On Sep 30, 9:54 am, jacob navia <> wrote:
    > Le 30/09/11 10:44, AK a écrit :
    >
    > > HI guys,

    >
    > > Its been a really long time since I came back here and the reason is
    > > simply that I was working with Java when I started working. Now that I
    > > have entered a grad school, I am in the process of returning to C.

    >
    > > So, heres the big question. Back in the days when I last used C, I
    > > used to use the Bloodshed Dev-C++ IDE that comes(or at-least used to)
    > > with the MIngw package. However, things have changed and my new laptop
    > > runs Windows 7. So, I am looking for a compiler(preferably an IDE)
    > > that I can use as I am re-learning C. I am hoping to get a compiler
    > > that sticks to the standards. So, any suggestions?

    >
    > > Thanks
    > > Anoop

    >
    > The lcc-win compiler implements most of C99. It has an IDE, windowed
    > debugger, and it can be downloaded at no cost.


    ....for non-commercial use

    > http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32/
     
    Nick Keighley, Oct 2, 2011
    #10
  11. On Sep 30, 9:44 am, AK <> wrote:

    > Its been a really long time since I came back here and the reason is
    > simply that I was working with Java when I started working. Now that I
    > have entered a grad school, I am in the process of returning to C.
    >
    > So, heres the big question. Back in the days when I last used C, I
    > used to use the Bloodshed Dev-C++ IDE that comes(or at-least used to)
    > with the MIngw package. However, things have changed and my new laptop
    > runs Windows 7. So, I am looking for a compiler(preferably an IDE)
    > that I can use as I am re-learning C. I am hoping to get a compiler
    > that sticks to the standards.


    which standard. For maximum portability use C89. The latest standard
    is C99 but it isn't so widely supported.

    >So, any suggestions?
     
    Nick Keighley, Oct 2, 2011
    #11
  12. AK

    jacob navia Guest

    Le 02/10/11 12:01, Nick Keighley a écrit :
    > On Sep 30, 9:54 am, jacob navia<> wrote:
    >> Le 30/09/11 10:44, AK a écrit :
    >>
    >>> HI guys,

    >>
    >>> Its been a really long time since I came back here and the reason is
    >>> simply that I was working with Java when I started working. Now that I
    >>> have entered a grad school, I am in the process of returning to C.

    >>
    >>> So, heres the big question. Back in the days when I last used C, I
    >>> used to use the Bloodshed Dev-C++ IDE that comes(or at-least used to)
    >>> with the MIngw package. However, things have changed and my new laptop
    >>> runs Windows 7. So, I am looking for a compiler(preferably an IDE)
    >>> that I can use as I am re-learning C. I am hoping to get a compiler
    >>> that sticks to the standards. So, any suggestions?

    >>
    >>> Thanks
    >>> Anoop

    >>
    >> The lcc-win compiler implements most of C99. It has an IDE, windowed
    >> debugger, and it can be downloaded at no cost.

    >
    > ...for non-commercial use
    >
    >> http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32/

    >


    Exactly.

    But you did NOT add any commentary when the Microsoft compiler
    was proposed even if I can read in their license:

    <quote>
    MSDN software may not be used in production environments, which require
    regular, non-MSDN licenses for the software being used—for example, a
    software license and client access licenses (CALs) for Windows Server 2008.
    <end quote>

    Obviously when it is done by Microsoft it is OK, even if they have
    much more stricter rules than lcc-win...

    Ahhhh the regulars, what pile of sh$t!
     
    jacob navia, Oct 2, 2011
    #12
  13. On Oct 2, 11:21 am, jacob navia <> wrote:
    > Le 02/10/11 12:01, Nick Keighley a crit :
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Sep 30, 9:54 am, jacob navia<>  wrote:
    > >> Le 30/09/11 10:44, AK a crit :

    >
    > >>> HI guys,

    >
    > >>> Its been a really long time since I came back here and the reason is
    > >>> simply that I was working with Java when I started working. Now that I
    > >>> have entered a grad school, I am in the process of returning to C.

    >
    > >>> So, heres the big question. Back in the days when I last used C, I
    > >>> used to use the Bloodshed Dev-C++ IDE that comes(or at-least used to)
    > >>> with the MIngw package. However, things have changed and my new laptop
    > >>> runs Windows 7. So, I am looking for a compiler(preferably an IDE)
    > >>> that I can use as I am re-learning C. I am hoping to get a compiler
    > >>> that sticks to the standards. So, any suggestions?

    >
    > >>> Thanks
    > >>> Anoop

    >
    > >> The lcc-win compiler implements most of C99. It has an IDE, windowed
    > >> debugger, and it can be downloaded at no cost.

    >
    > > ...for non-commercial use

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

    >
    > Exactly.
    >
    > But you did NOT add any commentary when the Microsoft compiler
    > was proposed even if I can read in their license:
    >
    > <quote>
    > MSDN software may not be used in production environments, which require
    > regular, non-MSDN licenses for the software being used for example, a
    > software license and client access licenses (CALs) for Windows Server 2008.
    > <end quote>
    >
    > Obviously when it is done by Microsoft it is OK, even if they have
    > much more stricter rules than lcc-win...


    wasn't aware of it. Though my reading of what you quote doesn't seem
    topreclude me selling software I've developed using Visual C++
    Express.

    > Ahhhh the regulars, what pile of sh$t!


    ah Navia the paranoid.

    If you simply included the words "free for non-commercial use" when
    you posted about your compiler I wouldn't have to do it for you.
     
    Nick Keighley, Oct 2, 2011
    #13
  14. AK

    jacob navia Guest

    Le 02/10/11 18:43, Robert Wessel a écrit :
    >>> The lcc-win compiler implements most of C99. It has an IDE, windowed
    >>>> debugger, and it can be downloaded at no cost.
    >>>
    >>> ...for non-commercial use
    >>>
    >>>> http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32/
    >>>

    >>
    >> Exactly.
    >>
    >> But you did NOT add any commentary when the Microsoft compiler
    >> was proposed even if I can read in their license:
    >>
    >> <quote>
    >> MSDN software may not be used in production environments, which require
    >> regular, non-MSDN licenses for the software being used—for example, a
    >> software license and client access licenses (CALs) for Windows Server 2008.
    >> <end quote>
    >>
    >> Obviously when it is done by Microsoft it is OK, even if they have
    >> much more stricter rules than lcc-win...
    >>
    >> Ahhhh the regulars, what pile of sh$t!

    >
    >
    > That's not correct. Visual Studio Express *can* be used for general
    > software development.
    >


    I went to:

    http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/en-us/products/2010-editions/visual-cpp-express

    Then I went to "License" and I arrived at
    http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?displaylang=en&id=13350

    Then I clicked in the PDF button and I got the document where that quote
    comes from.

    Maybe there is another (not shown) license, who knows.

    In any case you can use my software to compile anything and sell your
    programs that remain your property.

    Schools and Universities pay a license fee when they use my compiler
    for a class. Companies pay a license when they use my compiler for
    business.

    So what?

    You don't agree? You find it outrageous?

    I really do not care.



    > What you're referencing above is the software that's made available to
    > MSDN subscribers. For example, the MSDN subscription that I have
    > gives me access to almost all MS products, and license keys for those
    > products, but only for development use. So I can install big versions
    > Windows Server and SQL Server (and anything else I feel like) on a
    > development machine and develop and test against those to my heart's
    > content. The license prohibits me from using those in a production
    > role (IOW, I can't use any of the dozens of license for WS included in
    > my MSDN subscription for our company's file server, but I can set up a
    > bunch of test servers).


    Well, that's the same as I do, but if they do it is OK and when I do it
    it is not.
     
    jacob navia, Oct 2, 2011
    #14
  15. Nick Keighley <> writes:
    > On Sep 30, 9:44 am, AK <> wrote:
    >> Its been a really long time since I came back here and the reason is
    >> simply that I was working with Java when I started working. Now that I
    >> have entered a grad school, I am in the process of returning to C.
    >>
    >> So, heres the big question. Back in the days when I last used C, I
    >> used to use the Bloodshed Dev-C++ IDE that comes(or at-least used to)
    >> with the MIngw package. However, things have changed and my new laptop
    >> runs Windows 7. So, I am looking for a compiler(preferably an IDE)
    >> that I can use as I am re-learning C. I am hoping to get a compiler
    >> that sticks to the standards.

    >
    > which standard. For maximum portability use C89. The latest standard
    > is C99 but it isn't so widely supported.


    Agreed. On the other hand, many compilers support large subsets of C99,
    and a few support essentially all of it.

    Your options are:

    1. Use only C89/C90. Whatever compiler you're using, invoke it in
    strict C90 mode (for gcc: "-ansi -pedantic"; for other compilers, see
    their documentation). Avoid writing any code that conflicts with C99;
    for example, provide prototypes for all functions (a very good idea
    regardless), don't use "inline" or "restrict" as identifiers, and a few
    other things. This should give you maximum portability.

    *Some* C99-specific features can be implemented (more or less) in C90.
    For example, <http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/q8/index.html> is a C90
    implementation of C99's <stdint.h>. You can create something that acts
    very similarly to C99's "bool" with:
    typedef enum { false, true } bool;
    (there are subtle differences, but straightforward usage should be ok).

    2. Use some, but not all, C99 features. Do some research on all the
    compilers your code is likely to be compiled with, and find out what
    C99-specific features they support. Consider using

    #if __STDC__VERSION >= 199901L

    to test for C99 compliance, falling back to C90 when necessary
    and possible. Note that if you need to use Microsoft's C compiler,
    the subset of C99 you'll be able to use might be very small.

    3. Use C99. This will restrict your code to C99-conforming
    compilers. As time passes, the set of compilers you can use
    *should* increase, but uptake has been disappointingly slow.
    Keep an eye on the development of the C201X standard; with luck,
    it *might* get better support in the coming years than C99 did.
    <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1570.pdf> is the
    latest draft. C201X proposes to make some features optional --
    including some that are mandatory in C99.

    All these options are potentially more complex if you need to use
    compiler-specific extensions.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
     
    Keith Thompson, Oct 2, 2011
    #15
  16. AK

    Geoff Guest

    On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 03:01:59 -0700 (PDT), Nick Keighley
    <> wrote:

    >On Sep 30, 9:54 am, jacob navia <> wrote:
    >> Le 30/09/11 10:44, AK a écrit :
    >>
    >> > HI guys,

    >>
    >> > Its been a really long time since I came back here and the reason is
    >> > simply that I was working with Java when I started working. Now that I
    >> > have entered a grad school, I am in the process of returning to C.

    >>
    >> > So, heres the big question. Back in the days when I last used C, I
    >> > used to use the Bloodshed Dev-C++ IDE that comes(or at-least used to)
    >> > with the MIngw package. However, things have changed and my new laptop
    >> > runs Windows 7. So, I am looking for a compiler(preferably an IDE)
    >> > that I can use as I am re-learning C. I am hoping to get a compiler
    >> > that sticks to the standards. So, any suggestions?

    >>
    >> > Thanks
    >> > Anoop

    >>
    >> The lcc-win compiler implements most of C99. It has an IDE, windowed
    >> debugger, and it can be downloaded at no cost.

    >
    >...for non-commercial use
    >

    .... the mentioning of which was completely unnecessary since it's
    stated prominently on the referenced link.

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


    ....unless, of course, you just wanted to push Jacob's button.
     
    Geoff, Oct 2, 2011
    #16
  17. AK

    Ian Collins Guest

    On 10/ 3/11 07:20 AM, Keith Thompson wrote:
    >
    > 3. Use C99. This will restrict your code to C99-conforming
    > compilers. As time passes, the set of compilers you can use
    > *should* increase, but uptake has been disappointingly slow.
    > Keep an eye on the development of the C201X standard; with luck,
    > it *might* get better support in the coming years than C99 did.
    > <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1570.pdf> is the
    > latest draft. C201X proposes to make some features optional --
    > including some that are mandatory in C99.


    In practice the set of targets without a standard C compiler is limited
    to those small embedded targets which lack either a gcc port, or a
    modern compiler.

    When designing an embedded system, just avoid them unless the price
    point is really critical.

    --
    Ian Collins
     
    Ian Collins, Oct 2, 2011
    #17
  18. AK

    jacob navia Guest

    Le 03/10/11 07:42, Robert Wessel a écrit :
    >
    >
    > As I understand your licensing, it's *not*. The VS Express products
    > are free for commercial use, while yours are not.


    The problem is that you suppose a different license for express products
    than for MSDN products. I searhed that site and could NOT find any
    OTHER license as the MSDN license. Could you please send me a pointer
    to that famous "express" license? Where is it?
     
    jacob navia, Oct 3, 2011
    #18
  19. On Oct 2, 7:11 pm, jacob navia <> wrote:
    > Le 02/10/11 18:43, Robert Wessel a écrit :



    > >>> The lcc-win compiler implements most of C99. It has an IDE, windowed
    > >>>> debugger, and it can be downloaded at no cost.

    >
    > >>> ...for non-commercial use


    <snip>

    > In any case you can use my software to compile anything and sell your
    > programs that remain your property.
    >
    > Schools and Universities pay a license fee when they use my compiler
    > for a class. Companies pay a license when they use my compiler for
    > business.
    >
    > So what?
    >
    > You don't agree? You find it outrageous?


    it's your product you can license it/sell it any way you please. I'm
    paid to write software so I'm hardly going to object to anyone else
    making money out of software they write. I simply want to you to
    advertise your product correctly.

    > I really do not care.


    seems you do or you wouldn't be throwing such a paddy.

    <snip MS terms and condictions>

    > Well, that's the same as I do, but if they do it is OK and when I do it
    > it is not.


    no it's the same. Its just Microsoft don't advertise their product on
    clc.
     
    Nick Keighley, Oct 3, 2011
    #19
  20. On Oct 2, 8:46 pm, Geoff <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 03:01:59 -0700 (PDT), Nick Keighley
    > <> wrote:
    > >On Sep 30, 9:54 am, jacob navia <> wrote:


    <snip>

    > >> The lcc-win compiler implements most of C99. It has an IDE, windowed
    > >> debugger, and it can be downloaded at no cost.

    >
    > >...for non-commercial use

    >
    > ... the mentioning of which was completely unnecessary since it's
    > stated prominently on the referenced link.


    opinions vary. I don't think it would cost him much to add the phrase.
    As stated I think his standard puff is slightly misleading.

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

    >
    > ...unless, of course, you just wanted to push Jacob's button.


    no. But it's an amusing side effect!
     
    Nick Keighley, Oct 3, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Tom Pester
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    378
    Tom Pester
    Oct 8, 2003
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    405
  3. U. George
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    1,230
    Andrew Thompson
    Jan 7, 2006
  4. Jonathan N. Little
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    5,672
    Jonathan N. Little
    Feb 6, 2005
  5. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    484
Loading...

Share This Page