Good shareware compiler for C?

[jacob navia]

santosh a écrit :

Ben Pfaff a écrit :

Dave Vandervies wrote:


Would you get in a car driven by somebody who thought driving on the
right[1] side of the road was optional?
If not, why would you use a compiler written by somebody who thought
that following the definition of the language is optional?


So you'd say the same about the authors of gcc? Both compilers have
their standard mode (includes extensions) and ANSI modes.


I don't see the authors of GCC posting here without properly
distinguishing between standard features and extensions. I have
seen Jacob do that numerous times.

This is a lie. I have never shown my extensions as being
part oif the language.

The people of gcc do not discuss anything about C.

C is dead for them and it is maintained for compatibility
reasons, but all their effort is for C++.

The problem with me is that I develop the only C compiler
that is NOT a C++ compiler.

Don't be too quick in jumping to conclusions. There's also PellesC,
based on the same frontend as lcc-win32.

<http://www.smorgasbordet.com/pellesc/>

Surely not the same front end since I have rewritten completely
the front end for C99. Pelles C is strictly C89.

The back end is from lcc 4.1, and the back end of lcc-win32 is
completely different, all completely rewritten.

jacob

 

[santosh]

Back end, surely?

jacob will hopefully correct any mistakes, but as far as I know, lcc,
(as written by Fraser and Hanson), is both a front-end and back-end,
the latter for several targets. Apparently, jacob has significantly
modified the back-end for x86, and written a set of tools like code
editor, project manager and others to encapsulate the compile, assemble
and link process.

 

[santosh]

santosh a écrit :

Surely not the same front end since I have rewritten completely
the front end for C99. Pelles C is strictly C89.

The back end is from lcc 4.1, and the back end of lcc-win32 is
completely different, all completely rewritten.

In that case I apologise to you and Richard Bos for the misinformation.
I'd been under the impression that you'd only modified the back-end.

Incidentally, the PellesC home page claims to have implemented "most"
of C99.

 

[CBFalconer]

Ben Pfaff a écrit :
.... snip ...

This is a lie. I have never shown my extensions as being
part oif the language.

Calling every minor disagreement or misconstruance a lie is not
gaining you any friends. Maybe you should set your spellchecker to
flag "lie".

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>

"A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
-- Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
"There is nothing more amazing than stupidity in action."
-- Thomas Matthews

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Calling every minor disagreement or misconstruance a lie is not
gaining you any friends. Maybe you should set your spellchecker to
flag "lie".

Who would want to be friends with a turd like you?

I think you seriously overestimate your importance.

 

[jacob.navia]

santosh a écrit :

Incidentally, the PellesC home page claims to have implemented "most"
of C99.

Yes. I have checked some constructs and it implements several, probably
most as youy say.

 

[Dan Henry]

Sorry, but I insist on "top posting".

When I clear phlem, I insist on spitting. In Singapore I spit out my
phlem, was arrested, then caned. I told them sternly that "I insist
on spitting". They didn't care and caned me anyway as per their
*local customs, conventions, and law*.

*PLONK*

 

[Kenny McCormack]

When I clear phlem, I insist on spitting. In Singapore I spit out my
phlem, was arrested, then caned. I told them sternly that "I insist
on spitting". They didn't care and caned me anyway as per their
*local customs, conventions, and law*.

And you loved every minute of it.