"Portable" C compilers?

[Albert]

Hello!

I am using the latest version of Thunderbird to access comp.lang.c

Could you please list some C compilers that do not need installation via
double-clicking a file of type exe and contain gcc?

Thank you

 

[Mark Hobley]

Could you please list some C compilers that do not need installation via
double-clicking a file of type exe and contain gcc?

What do you mean? All compilers requires installation, unless you are
planning to build from source using an existing compiler.

Mark.

 

[Ian Collins]

Hello!

I am using the latest version of Thunderbird to access comp.lang.c

Could you please list some C compilers that do not need installation via
double-clicking a file of type exe and contain gcc?

Any compiler for systems other than windows?

 

[Albert]

Albert...wrote:

What do you mean? All compilers requires installation, unless you are
planning to build from source using an existing compiler.

I mean compilers that can be directly copied from one computer to
another computer and run just as well. An example is the Digital Mars
C/C++ compiler: the folder is unzipped after a download and dumped
somewhere on my machine and it will work - if I plant it on my USB and
compile programs on another computer using what's on my USB the compiler
will still work.

Note: Digital Mars compiler does not use gcc.

 

[Albert]

Any compiler for systems other than windows?

I need a compiler (that exhibits the properties I specified in my
previous reply) that will work on Windows XP systems. Doubt my school
will upgrade the computers to Vista...

 

[Mark Hobley]

I mean compilers that can be directly copied from one computer to
another computer and run just as well.

So you want gcc without cygwin?

I am not sure what is available on Microsoft Windows XP.

Mark.

 

[Jean-Marc L.]

Albert a écrit :

I mean compilers that can be directly copied from one computer to
another computer and run just as well. An example is the Digital Mars
C/C++ compiler: the folder is unzipped after a download and dumped
somewhere on my machine and it will work - if I plant it on my USB and
compile programs on another computer using what's on my USB the compiler
will still work.

Note: Digital Mars compiler does not use gcc.

Seems that TCC could be an option :
http://bellard.org/tcc/

It works on Windows and Linux.

 

[luser-ex-troll]

I need a compiler (that exhibits the properties I specified in my
previous reply) that will work on Windows XP systems. Doubt my school
will upgrade the computers to Vista...

Even if all the workstations are windows, they may
be willing to consider a single Linux machine to which
students can connect with ssh. The would certainly
be educational for all concerned.

Or you could try installing a bootable image into the
keychain, and carry your O/S w/ you.

lxt

 

[Keith Thompson]

I am using the latest version of Thunderbird to access comp.lang.c

Is that relevant for some reason?

Could you please list some C compilers that do not need installation
via double-clicking a file of type exe and contain gcc?

You mentioned later in the thread that you need this for Windows, and
that what you're looking for is a compiler that you can install by
copying the files to your system.

Some Windows programs are installes via *.msi files; that would meet
your stated requirements.

Why exactly do you need this?

In any case, your question isn't about the C language. Since you're
specifically asking about gcc, you might try gnu.gcc.help.

 

[Albert]

Malcolm McLean wrote:

Compilers carry about baggage with them - a list of headers, and
libraries, normally several utility programs or a separate linker, often
an IDE.
So it is very unusual to get one that can function as a single
executable with no fiddling about to install correctly.

Exactly - Students at my school are not given 'administrator accounts'
on WinXP, and I am a student at this school. Now Borland C++ is
installed. I don't like it. When I need to write one huge source file
with a huge main function with little function breakdown, a lot of
global variables, don't appreciate Borland's crappy syntax highlighting,
different compiler with different errors/warnings, I don't want to
create 'projects' every single time. So I'm not using the compiler/IDE
installed on the school computer. But I like GCC. Programs which I send
to a server to be marked on, use GCC on Linux (I think Debian). So I
don't want to double click on install.exe, setup.exe nor anything .exe
just to [try] dump 'baggage' into C:\Program Files\[whatever] and get a
dialog box saying I don't have administrative accounts, please log into
such an account.

Now I just have to check the compilers recommended in previous replies...

 

[Ian Collins]

When I need to write one huge source file
with a huge main function with little function breakdown, a lot of
global variables,

No one ever "needs" to do that. You're either trolling, or being lead
astray.

 

[CBFalconer]

Could you please list some C compilers that do not need
installation via double-clicking a file of type exe and
contain gcc?

Try the DJGPP system, available at:

<http://delorie.com/djgpp/>

All downloads are of zip files.

 

[Albert]

No one ever "needs" to do that.

Except in programming contests.

 

[Flash Gordon]

Malcolm McLean wrote:

Exactly - Students at my school are not given 'administrator accounts'
on WinXP, and I am a student at this school. Now Borland C++ is
installed. I don't like it.

When you go to work in years to come you may have to use tools you don't
like. You need to learn to live with it.

When I need to write one huge source file
with a huge main function with little function breakdown, a lot of
global variables,

Borland does not force of even encourage you to do that.

don't appreciate Borland's crappy syntax highlighting,

That is configurable to a degree, or you can use a different editor.

different compiler with different errors/warnings, I don't want to
create 'projects' every single time. So I'm not using the compiler/IDE
installed on the school computer.

You don't have to do that either. It works perfectly well from the
command line.

But I like GCC. Programs which I send
to a server to be marked on, use GCC on Linux (I think Debian).

That is a good reason for trying it on gcc if you can. However...

So I
don't want to double click on install.exe, setup.exe nor anything .exe
just to [try] dump 'baggage' into C:\Program Files\[whatever] and get a
dialog box saying I don't have administrative accounts, please log into
such an account.

If they have set up security properly you won't be able to run programs
which are not approved. Even if they have not you could still get in to
trouble for running programs which are not approved.

Now I just have to check the compilers recommended in previous replies...

There are plenty out there.

 

[James Kuyper]

Except in programming contests.

You don't need to engage in programming contests, and it's a bad idea to
enter contests that require such stupid practices, because they will
tend to ruin your computer programming skills.

 

[Albert]

If they have set up security properly you won't be able to run programs
which are not approved. Even if they have not you could still get in to
trouble for running programs which are not approved.

No I couldn't. There isn't an issue from running a console program, as
long as command prompt doesn't appear on the monitor.

 

[luser-ex-troll]

No I couldn't. There isn't an issue from running a console program, as
long as command prompt doesn't appear on the monitor.

Do they have cameras aimed at your screen?
If I were you, I'd probably do something to get
in trouble just so I could justifiably call
them all fascists (at a private high school this
can be very effective).

If you aren't hurting anyone, and have no intention
of doing so, and (thanks to whatever security they
have installed) have very little likelihood of
causing any harm. They really have no right to
care one way or the other.

So, are you simulating a command-line with a dot-matrix
printer? Or writing batchfiles (or shortcuts) and
clicking them? It's painful to imagine.

Until they perfect natural language interaction or put
27 buttons on a mouse, the keyboard is faster.

lxt

 

[Keith Thompson]

Do they have cameras aimed at your screen?
If I were you, I'd probably do something to get
in trouble just so I could justifiably call
them all fascists (at a private high school this
can be very effective).

If you aren't hurting anyone, and have no intention
of doing so, and (thanks to whatever security they
have installed) have very little likelihood of
causing any harm. They really have no right to
care one way or the other.

[...]

Really? Who owns the computers? If you permitted someone to use a
computer that you own, but with conditions, would you have any right
to care if they violated those conditions?

 

[luser-ex-troll]

Do they have cameras aimed at your screen?
If I were you, I'd probably do something to get
in trouble just so I could justifiably call
them all fascists (at a private high school this
can be very effective).

If you aren't hurting anyone, and have no intention
of doing so, and (thanks to whatever security they
have installed) have very little likelihood of
causing any harm. They really have no right to
care one way or the other.

[...]

Really?  Who owns the computers?  If you permitted someone to use a
computer that you own, but with conditions, would you have any right
to care if they violated those conditions?

I hadn't considered it from that angle.
If a was a proto-fascist, mob-following, domineering
paranoiac, would I let somebody use my computer at
all?

[This is all directed at the hypothetical school computer
administrator who outlaws the command line interface.
Not at Keith, who points out a valid flaw in my argument.]

It is, of course, reasonable and appropriate for any
organization providing equipment or services to a
population to establish groundrules for the appropriate
(ie. safe) use to which such "solutions" may be put.
It is also all to easy for the letter of the law to
diverge widely from the spirit even in its first
incarnation.

It sounds like some 30something blue-suit holds a
traumatic childhood memory which has burned a
single meme into his unconscious which is insulated
from the rational centers and manifests solely in
emotional bursts: COMMAND LINE BAD.

Codifying such a prejudice is exactly what the power-
hungry schizoid wishes to do.

lxt
ps. Apologies for the ranting. Entrenched stupidities rub me the wrong
way.

 

[Flash Gordon]

Flash Gordon wrote:
If they have set up security properly you won't be able to run programs
which are not approved. Even if they have not you could still get in to
trouble for running programs which are not approved.
No I couldn't. There isn't an issue from running a console program, as
long as command prompt doesn't appear on the monitor.
Do they have cameras aimed at your screen?
If I were you, I'd probably do something to get
in trouble just so I could justifiably call
them all fascists (at a private high school this
can be very effective).
If you aren't hurting anyone, and have no intention
of doing so, and (thanks to whatever security they
have installed) have very little likelihood of
causing any harm. They really have no right to
care one way or the other.

[...]

Really? Who owns the computers? If you permitted someone to use a
computer that you own, but with conditions, would you have any right
to care if they violated those conditions?

I hadn't considered it from that angle.
If a was a proto-fascist, mob-following, domineering
paranoiac, would I let somebody use my computer at
all?

Suggesting that as the reason people might be forbidden from using
non-approved software is insulting.

[This is all directed at the hypothetical school computer
administrator who outlaws the command line interface.
Not at Keith, who points out a valid flaw in my argument.]

I certainly did not talk about outlawing the command line interface. In
fact, I pointed out that a lot of the OPs issues could be dealt with by
using Borland C++ *from* the command line!

It is, of course, reasonable and appropriate for any
organization providing equipment or services to a
population to establish groundrules for the appropriate
(ie. safe) use to which such "solutions" may be put.
It is also all to easy for the letter of the law to
diverge widely from the spirit even in its first
incarnation.

Banning the use of non-approved software is perfectly reasonable. Anyone
who does not consider it reasonable should give up the idea of any job
involving computers because for GOOD reasons it is standard practice.

It sounds like some 30something blue-suit holds a
traumatic childhood memory which has burned a
single meme into his unconscious which is insulated
from the rational centers and manifests solely in
emotional bursts: COMMAND LINE BAD.

I'm actually a 40something who does not often ware a suit and considers
the command line to be good.

Codifying such a prejudice is exactly what the power-
hungry schizoid wishes to do.

lxt
ps. Apologies for the ranting. Entrenched stupidities rub me the wrong
way.

Stop being insulting and start considering that there are serious
reasons for not wanting random software run on shared computers. Start
by considering how many trojans and viruses are out there. Then consider
how much "traded" software is infected (the answer is a lot). Then
consider the schools responsibility to protect user A (who is sensible)
from being affected by user B who obtains and uses virus/trojan ridden
software and is likely to get the school computers infected. Then
consider that it COSTS MONEY to clean up the mess when a computer gets
infected, and why should the tax payers have to foot the bill for kids
behaving studipdly and causing problems with school equipment.

In any case, all that I did here is point out that someone *could* get
in to trouble *if* it is not allowed, and that there might be security
measures preventing it.