COMPILER

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by MOUNTAIN KING, Jul 28, 2007.

  1. TRY CODEBLOCKS

    Multiple compiler support:

    GCC (MingW / Linux GCC)
    MSVC++
    Digital Mars
    Borland C++ 5.5
    Open Watcom



    The Open Source, Cross-platform,
    Free C/C++ IDE
    MOUNTAIN KING, Jul 28, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. MOUNTAIN KING

    Default User Guest

    MOUNTAIN KING wrote:

    >
    > TRY CODEBLOCKS


    *plonk*



    Brian
    Default User, Jul 28, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. MOUNTAIN KING

    jacob navia Guest

    MOUNTAIN KING wrote:
    > TRY CODEBLOCKS
    >
    > Multiple compiler support:
    >
    > GCC (MingW / Linux GCC)
    > MSVC++
    > Digital Mars
    > Borland C++ 5.5
    > Open Watcom
    >
    >
    >
    > The Open Source, Cross-platform,
    > Free C/C++ IDE
    >


    OK. I downloaded that stuff.
    Installed with all default options.
    Selected C as default language
    Typed a common "hello world" program:
    #include <stdio.h>
    int main(void)
    {
    long double d = 1e400;

    printf("hello %Lg\n",d);
    }

    Pressed "Build".

    Then it tells me
    "Error can't find cc1.exe".

    Ahhhh. After a lot of searching since this software comes with
    ZERO documentation, I found that the installation program installs
    the cc1.exe program in
    "C:\Program Files (x86)\CodeBlocks\libexec\gcc\mingw32\3.4.4"
    but expects the executables in
    c:\program files (x86)\codeblocks\bin.

    OK, that is just a bug. Copied the files. And then...
    Yes! I could see the compiler in action...

    "no include path to search for stddef.h"
    "no include path to search for stdarg.h"
    "error syntax error before size_t".
    and hundreds of other errors

    When you click in the errors, the IDE will not do anything.
    stddef.h is in the codeblocks include path list but it just
    doesn't work.

    Reflecting on how could I solve that, I noticed a series of
    buttons, and without really thing I pressed the one called
    "Debug/continue", expecting to test the debugger with an already
    compiled program.

    But then, codeblocks froze, telling me that it is trying to compile
    hello.c and there is no obvious way to understand how to "defreeze"
    it.

    So I closed the IDE, but when I try to restart it it tells me
    "Another program instance is already running. Aborting".

    Ahh this means that there is an invisible instance running. I
    start the task manager and kill it.

    Then, I can start codeblocks again

    When codeblocks starts, it puts a semi transparent logo. I am
    impressed by how well it looks. This makes me forget all other small
    problems I have seen. How much time they spent studying the
    logo, it looks perfect.

    Of coourse it will not compile this second time, so I try to use
    something from this pile of code. I chose "Export to html" and
    load the generated html file into the browser.

    It looks perfect except that the last brace is missing... The last
    line is not displayed.

    Well, codeblocks is a nice program.
    I tried it 1 year ago and I had the same problems. Maybe somebody
    of the developers list reads this. It would be nice too, if they would
    write some documentation... I mean is the first IDE I see that for
    documentation has "Tips for usage". Probably you have to read all the
    "tips" before you can use it.

    jacob
    jacob navia, Jul 28, 2007
    #3
  4. MOUNTAIN KING

    santosh Guest

    OT - Re: COMPILER

    jacob navia wrote:

    > MOUNTAIN KING wrote:
    >> TRY CODEBLOCKS
    >>
    >> Multiple compiler support:
    >>
    >> GCC (MingW / Linux GCC)
    >> MSVC++
    >> Digital Mars
    >> Borland C++ 5.5
    >> Open Watcom
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> The Open Source, Cross-platform,
    >> Free C/C++ IDE
    >>

    >
    > OK. I downloaded that stuff.


    <long winded bemoan snipped>

    Why don't you post this to the Code::Blocks
    forum/mailing-list/group/whatever than in here? What has Code::Blocks to do
    with this group?

    <OT>
    I tried Code::Blocks briefly a year back, when I still had a copy of
    Windows, and it worked fine. IIRC, an existing installation of gcc (MinGW)
    must be present, since Code::Blocks itself is merely an IDE.
    </OT>
    santosh, Jul 28, 2007
    #4
  5. MOUNTAIN KING

    jacob navia Guest

    Re: OT - Re: COMPILER

    >
    > Why don't you post this to the Code::Blocks
    > forum/mailing-list/group/whatever than in here? What has Code::Blocks to do
    > with this group?
    >


    Well, it was a C IDE and C IDEs are on topic...
    (Tools)

    > <OT>
    > I tried Code::Blocks briefly a year back, when I still had a copy of
    > Windows, and it worked fine. IIRC, an existing installation of gcc (MinGW)
    > must be present, since Code::Blocks itself is merely an IDE.
    > </OT>
    >


    No. I selected "CodeBlocks + Mingw compiler",
    and the compiler was installed by the installation program.
    jacob navia, Jul 28, 2007
    #5
  6. Re: OT - Re: COMPILER

    [Attrib restored]

    jacob navia said:
    >santosh said:
    >>
    >> Why don't you post this to the Code::Blocks
    >> forum/mailing-list/group/whatever than in here? What has Code::Blocks
    >> to do with this group?
    >>

    >
    > Well, it was a C IDE and C IDEs are on topic...
    > (Tools)


    Actually, it's C that's on topic, not C IDEs. If you are arguing that C
    tools are topical, then that would mean that all of the following are
    topical:

    ar bash ctags doxygen emacs find gcc hexdump indent joe knode lex mysql
    nm objdump pico qlib rgbmap sed tar ulimit vim wc xterm yacc zip

    since all of them are tools which can be used when writing C programs.
    So are thousands, or even millions, of other tools. Lest I be accused
    of bias, here are some Windows tools I've used for helping me write C
    programs: Notepad, edit, ed, Brief, gvim, MultiEdit, Visual Studio, C++
    Builder (yes, you can use it for C too), telnet, Rumba...

    ....well, that list is endless too, but I'm sure you get the idea. If
    discussion of such tools were topical, the group would quickly descend
    into a maelstrom of posts that had little or nothing to do with the
    language itself.

    The topic in comp.lang.c is the comp-uter lang-uage called C. It's very
    simple.

    --
    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, Jul 28, 2007
    #6
  7. MOUNTAIN KING

    Richard Guest

    Re: OT - Re: COMPILER

    santosh <> writes:

    > jacob navia wrote:
    >
    >> MOUNTAIN KING wrote:
    >>> TRY CODEBLOCKS
    >>>
    >>> Multiple compiler support:
    >>>
    >>> GCC (MingW / Linux GCC)
    >>> MSVC++
    >>> Digital Mars
    >>> Borland C++ 5.5
    >>> Open Watcom
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> The Open Source, Cross-platform,
    >>> Free C/C++ IDE
    >>>

    >>
    >> OK. I downloaded that stuff.

    >
    > <long winded bemoan snipped>
    >
    > Why don't you post this to the Code::Blocks
    > forum/mailing-list/group/whatever than in here? What has Code::Blocks to do
    > with this group?
    >
    > <OT>
    > I tried Code::Blocks briefly a year back, when I still had a copy of
    > Windows, and it worked fine. IIRC, an existing installation of gcc (MinGW)
    > must be present, since Code::Blocks itself is merely an IDE.
    > </OT>
    >


    More worryingly is that support for the biggest "new kid on the block"
    is either outdated or non existent (Ubuntu packages).

    I wouldn't recommend it to a C nOOb on a Linux platform.
    Richard, Jul 28, 2007
    #7
  8. MOUNTAIN KING

    Richard Guest

    "Default User" <> writes:

    > MOUNTAIN KING wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> TRY CODEBLOCKS

    >
    > *plonk*
    >
    >
    >
    > Brian
    >


    It that on topic? Does anyone really care who YOU *plonk*?

    No.
    Richard, Jul 28, 2007
    #8
  9. MOUNTAIN KING

    osmium Guest

    Re: OT - Re: COMPILER

    "santosh" writes:

    <snippage>

    > jacob navia wrote:
    >
    >> MOUNTAIN KING wrote:


    >>> TRY CODEBLOCKS


    >>> The Open Source, Cross-platform,
    >>> Free C/C++ IDE
    >>>

    >>
    >> OK. I downloaded that stuff.

    >
    > <long winded bemoan snipped>
    >
    > Why don't you post this to the Code::Blocks
    > forum/mailing-list/group/whatever than in here? What has Code::Blocks to
    > do
    > with this group?


    What you call a long winded bemoan, I would call a brief, useful, review.
    Do you really expect us to find Code Blocks support, register, get our
    address on yet another list we don't want to be on, learn the protocol and
    wade through what was already there? Let me draw your attention to a book
    that is going through a very lengthy review in another thread on this
    newsgroup. That too, is a tool of sorts thought to be of interest to C
    programmers.

    Thanks, Jacob.

    --
    Osmium
    osmium, Jul 28, 2007
    #9
  10. MOUNTAIN KING

    Richard Guest

    Re: OT - Re: COMPILER

    "osmium" <> writes:

    > "santosh" writes:
    >
    > <snippage>
    >
    >> jacob navia wrote:
    >>
    >>> MOUNTAIN KING wrote:

    >
    >>>> TRY CODEBLOCKS

    >
    >>>> The Open Source, Cross-platform,
    >>>> Free C/C++ IDE
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> OK. I downloaded that stuff.

    >>
    >> <long winded bemoan snipped>
    >>
    >> Why don't you post this to the Code::Blocks
    >> forum/mailing-list/group/whatever than in here? What has Code::Blocks to
    >> do
    >> with this group?

    >
    > What you call a long winded bemoan, I would call a brief, useful, review.
    > Do you really expect us to find Code Blocks support, register, get our
    > address on yet another list we don't want to be on, learn the protocol and
    > wade through what was already there? Let me draw your attention to a book
    > that is going through a very lengthy review in another thread on this
    > newsgroup. That too, is a tool of sorts thought to be of interest to C
    > programmers.


    But of course that's not OT because the core element here are enjoying
    savaging it.

    >
    > Thanks, Jacob.


    --
    Richard, Jul 28, 2007
    #10
  11. MOUNTAIN KING

    santosh Guest

    Re: OT - Re: COMPILER

    Richard wrote:

    > santosh <> writes:
    >
    >> jacob navia wrote:
    >>
    >>> MOUNTAIN KING wrote:
    >>>> TRY CODEBLOCKS
    >>>>
    >>>> Multiple compiler support:
    >>>>
    >>>> GCC (MingW / Linux GCC)
    >>>> MSVC++
    >>>> Digital Mars
    >>>> Borland C++ 5.5
    >>>> Open Watcom
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> The Open Source, Cross-platform,
    >>>> Free C/C++ IDE
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> OK. I downloaded that stuff.

    >>
    >> <long winded bemoan snipped>
    >>
    >> Why don't you post this to the Code::Blocks
    >> forum/mailing-list/group/whatever than in here? What has Code::Blocks to
    >> do with this group?
    >>
    >> <OT>
    >> I tried Code::Blocks briefly a year back, when I still had a copy of
    >> Windows, and it worked fine. IIRC, an existing installation of gcc
    >> (MinGW) must be present, since Code::Blocks itself is merely an IDE.
    >> </OT>
    >>

    >
    > More worryingly is that support for the biggest "new kid on the block"
    > is either outdated or non existent (Ubuntu packages).
    >
    > I wouldn't recommend it to a C nOOb on a Linux platform.


    Yes, I had to hand compile several support libraries before I could even get
    it to start.
    santosh, Jul 28, 2007
    #11
  12. Re: OT - Re: COMPILER

    In article <>, Richard <> wrote:
    ....
    >> wade through what was already there? Let me draw your attention to a book
    >> that is going through a very lengthy review in another thread on this
    >> newsgroup. That too, is a tool of sorts thought to be of interest to C
    >> programmers.

    >
    >But of course that's not OT because the core element here are enjoying
    >savaging it.


    Funny how that works, innit?

    P.S. What's really funny is how the core elements worked up this psuedo
    with the handle "santosh", to further their whacko position. Think
    carefully about how useful it is to have a "core element" poster with a
    decidely, shall we say, ethnic sounding name.
    Kenny McCormack, Jul 28, 2007
    #12
  13. MOUNTAIN KING

    santosh Guest

    Re: OT - Re: COMPILER

    osmium wrote:

    > "santosh" writes:
    >
    > <snippage>
    >
    >> jacob navia wrote:
    >>
    >>> MOUNTAIN KING wrote:

    >
    >>>> TRY CODEBLOCKS

    >
    >>>> The Open Source, Cross-platform,
    >>>> Free C/C++ IDE
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> OK. I downloaded that stuff.

    >>
    >> <long winded bemoan snipped>
    >>
    >> Why don't you post this to the Code::Blocks
    >> forum/mailing-list/group/whatever than in here? What has Code::Blocks to
    >> do
    >> with this group?

    >
    > What you call a long winded bemoan, I would call a brief, useful, review.
    > Do you really expect us to find Code Blocks support, register, get our
    > address on yet another list we don't want to be on, learn the protocol and
    > wade through what was already there?


    But, Jacob's bug report will be of use to the code::blocks developers, while
    it's largely going to be ignored. FWIW, I experienced similar problems
    myself under Windows, and to get it to start, I had hand compile several
    libraries under Linux.

    But what's the point of exchanging such messages here?

    > Let me draw your attention to a book
    > that is going through a very lengthy review in another thread on this
    > newsgroup. That too, is a tool of sorts thought to be of interest to C
    > programmers.


    Most of the "issues" that were pointed in Malcolm's book were involving C
    code.
    santosh, Jul 28, 2007
    #13
  14. MOUNTAIN KING

    Richard Guest

    Re: OT - Re: COMPILER

    (Kenny McCormack) writes:

    > In article <>, Richard <> wrote:
    > ...
    >>> wade through what was already there? Let me draw your attention to a book
    >>> that is going through a very lengthy review in another thread on this
    >>> newsgroup. That too, is a tool of sorts thought to be of interest to C
    >>> programmers.

    >>
    >>But of course that's not OT because the core element here are enjoying
    >>savaging it.

    >
    > Funny how that works, innit?
    >
    > P.S. What's really funny is how the core elements worked up this psuedo
    > with the handle "santosh", to further their whacko position. Think
    > carefully about how useful it is to have a "core element" poster with a
    > decidely, shall we say, ethnic sounding name.


    I think that might be carrying it a bit too far :-;
    Richard, Jul 28, 2007
    #14
  15. MOUNTAIN KING

    osmium Guest

    Re: OT - Re: COMPILER

    "santosh" writes:

    <snippage>

    > But what's the point of exchanging such messages here?


    Apparently you only saw bits and pieces of my post. The point is this:

    "Do you really expect us to find Code Blocks support,
    register, get our address on yet another list we don't
    want to be on, learn the protocol and wade through
    what was already there? "

    Someone proposed Code Blocks as being a useful thing. Jacob refuted that,
    and I thought rather effectively. It was not simply an assertion "this is
    junk". He told us *why* it was no good. I don't have all day to spend on
    this stuff and he saved us, collectively, a lot of time.

    Can't you see that?

    If he wants to also post his findings somewhere else where the Code Blocks
    people, if there indeed are such people could see it, that would be nice
    too.
    osmium, Jul 28, 2007
    #15
  16. MOUNTAIN KING

    santosh Guest

    Re: OT - Re: COMPILER

    osmium wrote:

    > "santosh" writes:
    >
    > <snippage>
    >
    >> But what's the point of exchanging such messages here?

    >
    > Apparently you only saw bits and pieces of my post. The point is this:
    >
    > "Do you really expect us to find Code Blocks support,
    > register, get our address on yet another list we don't
    > want to be on, learn the protocol and wade through
    > what was already there? "


    Not necessary. Just download a version and try it out. If there remain
    problems or issues for clarification, and you're insistent on continuing to
    use the IDE, then, IMHO, a dedicated forum would be the best place to go
    to.

    > Someone proposed Code Blocks as being a useful thing. Jacob refuted that,
    > and I thought rather effectively. It was not simply an assertion "this is
    > junk". He told us *why* it was no good.


    He told us that in his experience, it did not work properly. BTW, it was
    working fine for me about two years ago on Windows. Later versions started
    having problems, while the current one wont even startup on Linux without
    serious effort.

    The point is, the best way is to try and see. Also I agree that Jacob's
    review in itself is useful, just that it's the wrong group to post it in.

    > I don't have all day to spend on
    > this stuff and he saved us, collectively, a lot of time.
    >
    > Can't you see that?


    Yea, I can see your point.
    santosh, Jul 28, 2007
    #16
  17. MOUNTAIN KING

    jacob navia Guest

    Re: OT - Re: COMPILER

    santosh wrote:
    > osmium wrote:
    >
    >> "santosh" writes:
    >>
    >> <snippage>
    >>
    >>> But what's the point of exchanging such messages here?

    >> Apparently you only saw bits and pieces of my post. The point is this:
    >>
    >> "Do you really expect us to find Code Blocks support,
    >> register, get our address on yet another list we don't
    >> want to be on, learn the protocol and wade through
    >> what was already there? "

    >
    > Not necessary. Just download a version and try it out. If there remain
    > problems or issues for clarification, and you're insistent on continuing to
    > use the IDE, then, IMHO, a dedicated forum would be the best place to go
    > to.
    >
    >> Someone proposed Code Blocks as being a useful thing. Jacob refuted that,
    >> and I thought rather effectively. It was not simply an assertion "this is
    >> junk". He told us *why* it was no good.

    >
    > He told us that in his experience, it did not work properly. BTW, it was
    > working fine for me about two years ago on Windows. Later versions started
    > having problems, while the current one wont even startup on Linux without
    > serious effort.
    >
    > The point is, the best way is to try and see. Also I agree that Jacob's
    > review in itself is useful, just that it's the wrong group to post it in.
    >
    >> I don't have all day to spend on
    >> this stuff and he saved us, collectively, a lot of time.
    >>
    >> Can't you see that?

    >
    > Yea, I can see your point.
    >
    >


    That's all I wanted to do.

    Very often we see here:

    "C programmer's site http://www bla bla"

    And some people make the effort of reviewing that site to tell the
    others if it is worth to go there. This is basically the same.

    jacob
    jacob navia, Jul 28, 2007
    #17
  18. Re: OT - Re: COMPILER

    santosh said:

    <snip>

    > Also I agree that
    > Jacob's review in itself is useful, just that it's the wrong group to
    > post it in.


    That's hardly Mr Navia's fault, since he did not choose the group. Some
    bozo called MOUNTAIN KING did that. All Mr Navia did was debunk the
    product being spammed to the group; such debunking is a perfectly
    reasonable thing 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, Jul 28, 2007
    #18
  19. MOUNTAIN KING

    santosh Guest

    Re: OT - Re: COMPILER

    Kenny McCormack wrote:

    > In article <>, Richard <> wrote:
    > ...
    >>> wade through what was already there? Let me draw your attention to a
    >>> book that is going through a very lengthy review in another thread on
    >>> this
    >>> newsgroup. That too, is a tool of sorts thought to be of interest to C
    >>> programmers.

    >>
    >>But of course that's not OT because the core element here are enjoying
    >>savaging it.

    >
    > Funny how that works, innit?
    >
    > P.S. What's really funny is how the core elements worked up this psuedo
    > with the handle "santosh", to further their whacko position.


    I take responsibility for what I post. I have not got "worked up" by "the
    core elements", whatever that means.

    > Think
    > carefully about how useful it is to have a "core element" poster with a
    > decidely, shall we say, ethnic sounding name.


    There is no "core element" in this group. Different people post according to
    their independent judgements. Sometimes, it happens that one or more
    posters agree.

    BTW, what's ethnicity got to do with posting to this group?

    PS. If you feel strongly that there should be no effort to maintain
    topicality, why don't you provide useful responses to the OT questions we
    keep getting? OTOH, typically, your stock response is the least useful and
    most acerbic, directing the poor OP to a Wikipaedia page on Aspergers
    syndrome and similar nonsense. At least the rest of us provide useful
    redirections.
    santosh, Jul 28, 2007
    #19
  20. MOUNTAIN KING

    Richard Guest

    Re: OT - Re: COMPILER

    Richard Heathfield <> writes:

    > santosh said:
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >> Also I agree that
    >> Jacob's review in itself is useful, just that it's the wrong group to
    >> post it in.

    >
    > That's hardly Mr Navia's fault, since he did not choose the group. Some
    > bozo called MOUNTAIN KING did that. All Mr Navia did was debunk the
    > product being spammed to the group; such debunking is a perfectly
    > reasonable thing to do.



    How can debunking be ok but singing the praises not be? Are you always
    so mindlessly destructive in your thinking and judgements?

    --
    Richard, Jul 28, 2007
    #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. Yan
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,130
  2. Jack Wright
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    619
    Shiv Kumar
    Jan 19, 2004
  3. Ram
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,827
  4. Andrey Batyuck

    Compiler compiler with C++ as output

    Andrey Batyuck, May 11, 2004, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    436
    Frederik Hertzum
    May 17, 2004
  5. RickMuller
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    702
    Alexey Shamrin
    Mar 26, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page