good c compiler

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by bernard, Sep 23, 2008.

  1. bernard

    bernard Guest

    howdy!

    please recommend a good c compiler.

    - should be small
    - should be fast
    - should come with a good ide
    - should be inexpensive

    i am using windows os.

    awaiting replies.
     
    bernard, Sep 23, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. bernard

    jacob navia Guest

    bernard wrote:
    > howdy!
    >
    > please recommend a good c compiler.
    >
    > - should be small
    > - should be fast
    > - should come with a good ide
    > - should be inexpensive
    >
    > i am using windows os.
    >
    > awaiting replies.


    Hi bernard:

    lcc-win is a good compiler. I know, since I wrote most of it.
    Comes with good IDE+resource editor, compiler+linker+debugger.
    Project management, utilities included.

    Compiler has extensive math library. Language accepted is C99.

    Price: Zero dollar and zero cents, for personal use.

    Download: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win.

    --
    jacob navia
    jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
    logiciels/informatique
    http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
     
    jacob navia, Sep 23, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. jacob navia <> writes:
    [...]
    > lcc-win is a good compiler. I know, since I wrote most of it.
    > Comes with good IDE+resource editor, compiler+linker+debugger.
    > Project management, utilities included.
    >
    > Compiler has extensive math library. Language accepted is C99.


    Nearly.

    > Price: Zero dollar and zero cents, for personal use.
    >
    > Download: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win.


    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Nokia
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
     
    Keith Thompson, Sep 23, 2008
    #3
  4. bernard

    CBFalconer Guest

    bernard wrote:
    >
    > please recommend a good c compiler.
    >
    > - should be small
    > - should be fast
    > - should come with a good ide
    > - should be inexpensive
    >
    > i am using windows os.


    I recommend getting the DJGPP system and gcc. See delorie.com.

    --
    [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
    [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
    Try the download section.
     
    CBFalconer, Sep 24, 2008
    #4
  5. bernard

    fb Guest

    CBFalconer wrote:
    > bernard wrote:
    >> please recommend a good c compiler.
    >>
    >> - should be small
    >> - should be fast
    >> - should come with a good ide
    >> - should be inexpensive
    >>
    >> i am using windows os.

    >
    > I recommend getting the DJGPP system and gcc. See delorie.com.
    >

    That was a good compiler...but I thought it was DOS only and the
    development seems to have gone slightly stale. Still...an excellent
    compiler from what I recall.
     
    fb, Sep 24, 2008
    #5
  6. bernard

    Guest

    , Sep 24, 2008
    #6
  7. bernard

    Guest

    On Sep 24, 12:39 am, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    > said:
    >
    > > On Sep 24, 12:02 am, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    > >> bernard said:

    >
    > >> > howdy!

    >
    > >> > please recommend a good c compiler.

    >
    > >>http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/portable/c/resources.php#FreeCompilers

    >
    > > Is the 'lcc' compiler listed below the 'The Digital Mars C compiler'
    > > the same as Jacob's lcc-win?

    >
    > As I understand it, Jacob Navia took the lcc source code and used it as the
    > basis for lcc-win32. So the answer to your question is really "it was,
    > once, but is no longer".
    >
    > The lcc-win32 compiler /used/ to be on the list, but I took it off when I
    > realised that the maintainer wasn't particularly concerned about
    > conformance (a position that he has made abundantly clear on many
    > occasions by his impatience towards reports of conformance errors in his
    > compiler). It's a list of C compilers, not a list of "ain't my language
    > cute and by the way doesn't it look a bit like C?" compilers.
    >


    I see you still hold the absurd position that a non-fully-conforming
    compiler "isn't a C compiler"... Well well, no need to discuss that
    all over again!

    Sebastian
     
    , Sep 24, 2008
    #7
  8. bernard

    Guest

    On Sep 24, 1:07 am, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    > said:
    >
    > <snip>
    >
    >
    >
    > > I see you still hold the absurd position that a non-fully-conforming
    > > compiler "isn't a C compiler"...

    >
    > I see you still hold the absurd position that C compilers are not obliged
    > to implement the C language correctly.


    Where did I say that C compilers are not obliged to implement the C
    language correctly?

    > I don't see how this view excludes,
    > say, the GFA BASIC compiler from being a C compiler. In fact, I don't see
    > how it excludes a garden fork or a cup of coffee from being a C compiler.
    >


    This excludes them: common sense. (Although you don't make very heavy
    use of that.)

    Sebastian
     
    , Sep 24, 2008
    #8
  9. bernard

    Guest

    On Sep 24, 1:34 am, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    > said:
    >
    > > On Sep 24, 1:07 am, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    > >> said:

    >
    > >> <snip>

    >
    > >> > I see you still hold the absurd position that a non-fully-conforming
    > >> > compiler "isn't a C compiler"...

    >
    > >> I see you still hold the absurd position that C compilers are not
    > >> obliged to implement the C language correctly.

    >
    > > Where did I say that C compilers are not obliged to implement the C
    > > language correctly?

    >
    > If you agree that C compilers *are* obliged to implement the C language
    > correctly, you share my "absurd" position that a non-fully-conforming
    > compiler isn't a C compiler.
    >


    No, because fully-conforming is not the same as correctly. Remember
    that dereferencing an uninitialized pointer can cause a fully-
    conforming implementation to execute the "rm -rf /" command. I don't
    know about you, but I don't consider that "correctness". In any event,
    there are still more important things in an implementation than full
    conformance, such as actual usability, as I've mentioned before (e.g.,
    powerful libraries, good optimization, innovative language extensions,
    etc).

    > >> I don't see how this view excludes,
    > >> say, the GFA BASIC compiler from being a C compiler. In fact, I don't
    > >> see how it excludes a garden fork or a cup of coffee from being a C
    > >> compiler.

    >
    > > This excludes them: common sense.

    >
    > Yes, but common sense also excludes (from the set of all C compilers)
    > compilers that don't implement C, and yet until your most recent
    > disclaimer (quoted above - "Where did I say that C compilers are not
    > obliged...") it did seem that you wanted to include compilers that don't
    > implement C, which flies in the face of common sense.
    >


    Terminology disagreements. Let's forget them.

    Sebastian
     
    , Sep 24, 2008
    #9
  10. bernard

    cr88192 Guest

    "bernard" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > howdy!
    >
    > please recommend a good c compiler.
    >
    > - should be small
    > - should be fast
    > - should come with a good ide
    > - should be inexpensive
    >
    > i am using windows os.
    >


    MinGW and Cygwin are good.
    each has different merits, but I more prefer MinGW for technical reasons
    (but Cygwin is better at being a "nicer" framework with a better set of
    tools).

    free IDE's are also available, but I don't personally use them.


    > awaiting replies.
     
    cr88192, Sep 24, 2008
    #10
  11. bernard

    jacob navia Guest

    wrote:
    > On Sep 24, 12:02 am, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    >> bernard said:
    >>
    >>> howdy!
    >>> please recommend a good c compiler.

    >> http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/portable/c/resources.php#FreeCompilers
    >>

    >
    > Is the 'lcc' compiler listed below the 'The Digital Mars C compiler'
    > the same as Jacob's lcc-win?
    >
    > Sebastian
    >


    No. That is the original lcc, without the work I have done:

    o C89: no long long, nor long double.
    o No assembler, you have to use microsoft assembler
    o no linker
    o no debugger, nor the possibility of a debugger since it
    doesn't generate debug information.
    o No ide



    --
    jacob navia
    jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
    logiciels/informatique
    http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
     
    jacob navia, Sep 24, 2008
    #11
  12. bernard

    jacob navia Guest

    Richard Heathfield wrote:
    > The lcc-win32 compiler /used/ to be on the list, but I took it off when I
    > realised that the maintainer wasn't particularly concerned about
    > conformance (a position that he has made abundantly clear on many
    > occasions by his impatience towards reports of conformance errors in his
    > compiler).



    This is a lie by somebody that has made abundantly clear that
    he hates my compiler. I have worked years implementing C99, and I have
    now an implementation that is not missing any important feature.



    --
    jacob navia
    jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
    logiciels/informatique
    http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
     
    jacob navia, Sep 24, 2008
    #12
  13. bernard

    cr88192 Guest

    "Richard Heathfield" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > said:
    >
    > <snip>
    >>
    >> I see you still hold the absurd position that a non-fully-conforming
    >> compiler "isn't a C compiler"...

    >
    > I see you still hold the absurd position that C compilers are not obliged
    > to implement the C language correctly. I don't see how this view excludes,
    > say, the GFA BASIC compiler from being a C compiler. In fact, I don't see
    > how it excludes a garden fork or a cup of coffee from being a C compiler.
    >


    forall A (A or not A)

    not a very useful way to think IMO.


    if something accepts and compiles C (for the vast majority of inputs), even
    if imperfectly in some edge cases, and offers a few extensions, it can still
    be classified as a C compiler IMO.

    the other things listed, however, will not compile any valid C programs...



    it is much the same as if someone goes and declares that someone goes to
    hell if they have ever become aroused, and that arousal is of an analogous
    level of guilt to adultery (even if the person in question is not married,
    the logic can be followed out this way).

    this position is absurd (and yes, some people go in this direction in terms
    of their doctrine).

    so, please refrain from this style of thinking, it is silly...


    > --
    > Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
    > Email: -http://www. +rjh@
    > Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
    > "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
     
    cr88192, Sep 24, 2008
    #13
  14. bernard

    Guest

    On Sep 24, 2:01 am, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    > said:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Sep 24, 1:34 am, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    > >> said:

    >
    > >> > On Sep 24, 1:07 am, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    > >> >> said:

    >
    > >> >> <snip>

    >
    > >> >> > I see you still hold the absurd position that a
    > >> >> > non-fully-conforming compiler "isn't a C compiler"...

    >
    > >> >> I see you still hold the absurd position that C compilers are not
    > >> >> obliged to implement the C language correctly.

    >
    > >> > Where did I say that C compilers are not obliged to implement the C
    > >> > language correctly?

    >
    > >> If you agree that C compilers *are* obliged to implement the C language
    > >> correctly, you share my "absurd" position that a non-fully-conforming
    > >> compiler isn't a C compiler.

    >
    > > No, because fully-conforming is not the same as correctly.

    >
    > If an implementation does not translate C programs according to the C
    > language definition, how can it be considered a C implementation?
    >


    Perhaps it does translate programs according to the language
    definition, but it lacks a set of features. Perhaps it adds a set of
    features. Perhaps it imposes modifications on a set of features. This
    sort of things are common among C implementations, and that doesn't
    prevent them from being C implementations.

    > > Remember
    > > that dereferencing an uninitialized pointer can cause a fully-
    > > conforming implementation to execute the "rm -rf /" command. I don't
    > > know about you, but I don't consider that "correctness".

    >
    > The incorrectness is in the program, not the implementation.


    Sure, the program incorrectly dereferences a pointer that it
    shouldn't. But I was talking about the compiler executing that command
    under that circumstance. Thankfully, I can now see your notion of
    "correctness".

    > But you merely
    > place an *additional* constraint on C implementations, the constraint of
    > "reasonableness", the constraint of "not deliberately setting out to wreak
    > revenge on the hapless programmer"


    Hapless? I thought you had agreed that even the most experienced
    programmer will make this sort of mistake.

    > - and of course mainstream
    > implementations do observe this constraint. Nevertheless, programmers
    > would do well to stick to the rules of C if they wish their code to work.
    >


    <snip>

    The point is that the word "conformance" is very meaningless in the
    context of C, unless you add that magical ingredient: common sense.
    Without it, a conforming implementation is some sort of program that
    can blow up your machine or make demons fly out of your nose. And when
    you do take common sense into account, you'll realize that what
    *really* is important in a C implementation, which you don't seem to
    see now, and which isn't full conformance.

    Sebastian
     
    , Sep 24, 2008
    #14
  15. On 23 Sep, 23:33, bernard <> wrote:

    > howdy!


    yo

    > please recommend a good c compiler.
    >
    > - should be small


    why? This is a serious question. Modern hardware comes
    with vast resources for low prices. Are you running
    your compiler on a toaster or something?

    > - should be fast
    > - should come with a good ide
    > - should be inexpensive
    >
    > i am using windows os.


    Microsoft provide a free version of their compiler.
    Look for "express"

    > awaiting replies.


    I'm not sure what that means


    --
    Nick Keighley
     
    Nick Keighley, Sep 24, 2008
    #15
  16. bernard

    Guest

    On Sep 24, 2:06 am, "cr88192" <> wrote:
    > "Richard Heathfield" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > said:

    >
    > > <snip>

    >
    > >> I see you still hold the absurd position that a non-fully-conforming
    > >> compiler "isn't a C compiler"...

    >
    > > I see you still hold the absurd position that C compilers are not obliged
    > > to implement the C language correctly. I don't see how this view excludes,
    > > say, the GFA BASIC compiler from being a C compiler. In fact, I don't see
    > > how it excludes a garden fork or a cup of coffee from being a C compiler.

    >
    > forall A (A or not A)
    >
    > not a very useful way to think IMO.
    >
    > if something accepts and compiles C (for the vast majority of inputs), even
    > if imperfectly in some edge cases, and offers a few extensions, it can still
    > be classified as a C compiler IMO.
    >
    > the other things listed, however, will not compile any valid C programs....
    >
    > it is much the same as if someone goes and declares that someone goes to
    > hell if they have ever become aroused, and that arousal is of an analogous
    > level of guilt to adultery (even if the person in question is not married,
    > the logic can be followed out this way).
    >
    > this position is absurd (and yes, some people go in this direction in terms
    > of their doctrine).
    >
    > so, please refrain from this style of thinking, it is silly...
    >
    > > --
    > > Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
    > > Email: -http://www. +rjh@
    > > Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
    > > "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

    >
    >
     
    , Sep 24, 2008
    #16
  17. bernard

    Guest

    (Oops, sorry for my empty previous post.)

    On Sep 24, 2:06 am, "cr88192" <> wrote:
    > "Richard Heathfield" <> wrote in message
    >
    > news:...
    >
    > > said:

    >
    > > <snip>

    >
    > >> I see you still hold the absurd position that a non-fully-conforming
    > >> compiler "isn't a C compiler"...

    >
    > > I see you still hold the absurd position that C compilers are not obliged
    > > to implement the C language correctly. I don't see how this view excludes,
    > > say, the GFA BASIC compiler from being a C compiler. In fact, I don't see
    > > how it excludes a garden fork or a cup of coffee from being a C compiler.

    >
    > forall A (A or not A)
    >
    > not a very useful way to think IMO.
    >
    > if something accepts and compiles C (for the vast majority of inputs), even
    > if imperfectly in some edge cases, and offers a few extensions, it can still
    > be classified as a C compiler IMO.
    >
    > the other things listed, however, will not compile any valid C programs....
    >
    > it is much the same as if someone goes and declares that someone goes to
    > hell if they have ever become aroused, and that arousal is of an analogous
    > level of guilt to adultery (even if the person in question is not married,
    > the logic can be followed out this way).
    >
    > this position is absurd (and yes, some people go in this direction in terms
    > of their doctrine).
    >
    > so, please refrain from this style of thinking, it is silly...
    >


    Thanks for bringing some common sense into this Dark World Of
    Nonsense.

    Sebastian
     
    , Sep 24, 2008
    #17
  18. On 24 Sep, 08:03, jacob navia <> wrote:
    > Richard Heathfield wrote:


    > > The lcc-win32 compiler /used/ to be on the list, but I took it off when I
    > > realised that the maintainer wasn't particularly concerned about
    > > conformance (a position that he has made abundantly clear on many
    > > occasions by his impatience towards reports of conformance errors in his
    > > compiler).

    >
    > This is a lie by somebody that has made abundantly clear that
    > he hates my compiler. I have worked years implementing C99, and I have
    > now an implementation that is not missing any important feature.


    good grief.

    I was just about to suggest to Richard that he add lcc-win
    back onto the list of free compilers as near compliance as
    opposed to full compliance is good enough. Perhaps with a
    caveat that it is only free for non-commercial use (this
    isn't a criticism) and that it has a few compliance holes
    (but then all real-world compilers probably do). But your
    post kind of illustrates your attitude to compliance.


    --
    Nick Keighley
     
    Nick Keighley, Sep 24, 2008
    #18
  19. bernard

    Chris Dollin Guest

    wrote:

    > Terminology disagreements. Let's forget them.


    If we forget them
    Then our languages will confuse
    One and another.

    Let us remember our disagreements
    But without making them
    occasions of turbulence.

    [Turbulence
    is off-topic
    in comp.lang.c.]

    --
    'It changed the future .. and it changed us.' /Babylon 5/

    Hewlett-Packard Limited registered office: Cain Road, Bracknell,
    registered no: 690597 England Berks RG12 1HN
     
    Chris Dollin, Sep 24, 2008
    #19
  20. bernard

    Bartc Guest

    "Richard Heathfield" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > said:


    >> Is the 'lcc' compiler listed below the 'The Digital Mars C compiler'
    >> the same as Jacob's lcc-win?

    >
    > As I understand it, Jacob Navia took the lcc source code and used it as
    > the
    > basis for lcc-win32. So the answer to your question is really "it was,
    > once, but is no longer".
    >
    > The lcc-win32 compiler /used/ to be on the list, but I took it off when I
    > realised that the maintainer wasn't particularly concerned about
    > conformance (a position that he has made abundantly clear on many
    > occasions by his impatience towards reports of conformance errors in his
    > compiler). It's a list of C compilers, not a list of "ain't my language
    > cute and by the way doesn't it look a bit like C?" compilers.


    I use lcc-win32 for compiling code appearing on c.l.c. In that regard, it
    performs quite adequately. So I would call it a C compiler.

    I also use Mingw and DMC for second opinions. I once used Pelles C too but I
    can't get that working again.

    I've also just looked at lcc on your list, but since it seems to be
    distributed as source code, I couldn't actually run it (lcc42.zip). So
    lcc-win32 is much more use here than lcc, for someone running Windows.

    --
    Bartc
     
    Bartc, Sep 24, 2008
    #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:
    1,154
  2. Jack Wright
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    636
    Shiv Kumar
    Jan 19, 2004
  3. Ram
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    2,878
  4. Andrey Batyuck

    Compiler compiler with C++ as output

    Andrey Batyuck, May 11, 2004, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    450
    Frederik Hertzum
    May 17, 2004
  5. RickMuller
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    724
    Alexey Shamrin
    Mar 26, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page