Good C Compiler for Windows..

[myhotline]

Hi all,

After googling i came across Pelles C, is it a good C compiler over
Windows( I am using Windows Xp )...Though Pelles C website says its a
C99-compliant compiler, even though i would like somebody to tell me
abnout this C99-COmpliance? Are there any other good C99-compliant
comilers available for windows....please do let me know....
Any cooperation at earliest will be highly appreciated...
REgards
-Ahmed

 

[jacob navia]

Hi all,

After googling i came across Pelles C, is it a good C compiler over
Windows( I am using Windows Xp )...Though Pelles C website says its a
C99-compliant compiler, even though i would like somebody to tell me
abnout this C99-COmpliance? Are there any other good C99-compliant
comilers available for windows....please do let me know....
Any cooperation at earliest will be highly appreciated...
REgards
-Ahmed

Other compilers exist:
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
It is based in lcc, as Pelles C is. Supports C99. Compare them and you
will see for yourself.

Another possibility is gcc, represented by Mingw (MINimalist Gcc for
Windows).
http://www.mingw.org
It doesn't have any resource designer/editor, and the debugger (gdb) is
text oriented. On the plus site it does C++, what Pelles C or lcc-win32
do not do at all.

Another free compiler is Microsoft compiler, because you can download
the command line tools from their site. It doesn't do optimizations and
there is no debugger or resource editor, but for the price, -) it is
quite a good offer!

Borland offers their free command line tools too. Look at their site for
more information.

Another free compiler is Watcom, that offers their compiler with source
code.
http://www.openwatcom.org
It is an optimizing compiler, but the tools
are quite ancient, for instance the resource editor doesn't support the
common controls. No support for C99 either. The C++ support is there but
I do not know if it compiles the STL.

There is a choice, as you can easily see.

jacob

 

[venkatesh]

One can also use Bloodshed Dev-C++. It includes the Mingw gcc compiler
alongwith a nice IDE.

-venkatesh

 

[Tux Wonder-Dog]

One can also use Bloodshed Dev-C++. It includes the Mingw gcc compiler
alongwith a nice IDE.

-venkatesh

I've been wondering about Dev-C++. Does it include a resource,
icon/image/etc editor, and suchlike?

I use MinGW32, but am finding the lack of graphical tools like an icon/etc,
resource, etc editor a bit confining. One of the things I like most about
OpenWatcom is that it has those tools and I can use their output for
MinGW32.

Just my 0.02c.

Wesley Parish
--
"Good, late in to more rewarding well."  "Well, you tonight.  And I was
lookintelligent woman of Ming home.  I trust you with a tender silence."  I
get a word into my hands, a different and unbelike, probably - 'she
fortunate fat woman', wrong word.  I think to me, I justupid.
Let not emacs meta-X dissociate-press write your romantic dialogs...!!!

 

[jacob navia]

One can also use Bloodshed Dev-C++. It includes the Mingw gcc compiler
alongwith a nice IDE.

-venkatesh

It is indeed nice, but is it useful?

I would say that an IDE is more than just launching "make", the compiler
or gdb.

Has it "go to definition"? Can you click in an identifier and the
IDE will take you to the definition?

Does it have name completion? (i.e. you type the beginning of an
identifier and the IDE supplies the rest or a list of choices)

Does it remind you the names of the structure members? (you type
foo-> or foo. and the IDE supplies the list of union or structure
members)

Yes, syntax highliting but can you ask it to color the inactive
#ifdefed code in gray?

Yes, there is a debugger but it has no "automatic" window, where
the debugger figures out alone what identifiers you want to see...

Has it a resource editor to graphically display the dialog boxes
and other stuff?

The problem with many free IDEs is that they concentrate on the
looks, that are very nice (using another compiler's precooked
controls like Bloodshed) but they forget to spend more time
in the real issues of an IDE...

Bloodshed IDE doesn't compile itself. You need Delphi to compile
it. If the developers would have used the IDE to develop it, they
would have seen what it takes to build an IDE.

 

[one2001boy]

Hi all,

After googling i came across Pelles C, is it a good C compiler over
Windows( I am using Windows Xp )...Though Pelles C website says its a
C99-compliant compiler, even though i would like somebody to tell me
abnout this C99-COmpliance? Are there any other good C99-compliant
comilers available for windows....please do let me know....
Any cooperation at earliest will be highly appreciated...
REgards
-Ahmed

Not sure if interpreter counts?
You can check free C/C++ interpreter Ch.
The supported C99 features can be found at
http://www.softintegration.com/demos/chstandard/c99.html

You may also check gcc for windows. many c99 features are supported as well.

 

[Emmanuel Delahaye]

jacob navia wrote on 20/05/05 :

Another possibility is gcc, represented by Mingw (MINimalist Gcc for
Windows).
http://www.mingw.org
It doesn't have any resource designer/editor, and the debugger (gdb) is
text oriented. On the plus site it does C++, what Pelles C or lcc-win32
do not do at all.

The Dev-C++ IDE comes with mingw and a project manager, an editor,
extern tools capablities, source templates, a debugger all in an
integrated GUI.

http://www.bloodshed.net/devcpp.html

--
Emmanuel
The C-FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/faq.html
The C-library: http://www.dinkumware.com/refxc.html

..sig under repair

 

[Michel Rouzic]

Well, personnally, I use GCC under Cygwin and it's pretty good. I type
my code in Gvim (for windows, the one vim on cygwin sucks) and it's
pretty good too.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Well, personnally, I use GCC under Cygwin and it's pretty good. I type
my code in Gvim (for windows, the one vim on cygwin sucks) and it's
pretty good too.

Works for me!

 

[Richard Bos]

I've been wondering about Dev-C++. Does it include a resource,
icon/image/etc editor, and suchlike?

Well... hardly. There's a resource file editor, but it's primitive. Then
again, hacking it by hand shouldn't be a problem for a programmer.

There isn't an icon editor, so I've had to write my own to be able to
follow chapter 10 of Petzold's book, which deals with resources. To my
pleasant surprise, this was possible with knowledge only from chapters
1-9, plus the .ico file format as found on Wotsit.

There's no image editor, but I wouldn't want to use a compiler suite's
image editor anyway when there are full-blown image editors available,
even for free. Why piddle about with something barely better than MS
Paint when you can use PSP or the Gimp?

The greatest lack I've felt using Dev-C++ is that of a dialog editor.
Then again, I sketch these out on paper anyway, so it's just a matter of
typing in reasonable default values, compiling it, and then adjusting
numbers where necessary.


The greatest advantage of Dev-C++ over more automated suites, say,
Pelles C, is that Dev-C++ doesn't force you into its own modus operandi
(mainly because it hasn't one).
With Pelles C, I have yet to discover a way to manually set the IDs of
menu items exactly the way I want them. When it opens a resource file, I
see a tree, not a file - and this is quite unlike the way it shows other
files, and TTBOMK there's no way around it. Perhaps worst of all, I
cannot compile a single .c file without creating a full-blown project -
and have you seen the amount of rubble it creates for every single
project?
With Dev-C++, I don't get much help, but OTOH, I'm not hindered, either.
I can compile any file, or any project, no matter where. If I want a
separate directory for a program, I make it. If I want to compile only
test.c, I do so. Resource IDs? I set them myself, to my own tastes.
Dev-C++ gives me freedom to do what I want, the way I want to do it -
freedom of action, not the vacuous freedoms of Speach or Bheer. I like
that freedom.

Richard