A
Ajinkya
Can anyone suggest me a good compiler for(c/cpp) for windows?
I tried dev cpp but its debugging facility is very poor.
I tried dev cpp but its debugging facility is very poor.
S
santosh
Ajinkya said:
Try MinGW, it comes with GDB. You may also try one of the "free" Visual C++
Express Editions. There is also PellesC, DJGPP, and lcc-win32. DJGPP is not
strictly for Windows however.
T
Tim Prince
It depends very much on personal usage, so you should start by lookingAjinkya said:
up past reviews (e.g. Google), and start with some which don't involve
too much investment, at least in the trial stage. I use both ICL and
cygwin gcc, recognizing those are clear minority choices. Both are
available for free (30 day trial only for ICL). If you insist on full
GUI, you don't have many choices, so just try them.
C
Chris Hills
It depends what you want to do.
The obvious choice is the free MS Visual C++ 2005 express which is on
free download and is the easiest place to start with windows
development.
M
Malcolm McLean
Apart from some trivial command-line stuff, I have yet to achieve a singleChris Hills said:
working real program with that thing.
F
Flash Gordon
Malcolm McLean wrote, On 22/07/07 21:20:
Go and ask on a MS group how to use it. Others manage. Some seem to
manage with a lot of ease.
Go and ask on a MS group how to use it. Others manage. Some seem to
manage with a lot of ease.
R
Richard
Malcolm McLean said:
Why? Everyone else seems to manage it just fine. It's not too bad for
free.
M
Malcolm McLean
I seem to spend hours putting Chinese hats on identifers and taking them offRichard said:
again, just to get it to compile a simple window. Though I have had moments
of glory, such as when I coaxed it into putting "Hello world" where I wanted
in a window, it still insists on adding stdafx.h to my portable ANSC C
files, complains about string functions, and things like that. Whilst I can
do little things, and it is kind of fun to play with all the windows and
form tools for your "solution", I don't see how you can work like that for
real.
J
Joe Wright
But let's do give DJGPP its due. Way back when, Richard Stallman wassantosh said:
asked for a port of GNU C for PC's he opined that it couldn't be done. A
young guy, DJ DeLorie, said "The hell you say!" and went to work.
That all started in the early '1990's as I recall. I got into it at v2
in 1996. DJGPP didn't then and doesn't now know anything about Windows.
It is a DOS program which creates DOS programs. These DOS programs run
perfectly well under the ntvdm.
http://www.delorie.com
R
Richard Heathfield
Malcolm McLean said:
Why? It's just C. Anyone can write a Win32 C program, yes?
Every single bloomin' time you create a project, your first job is to
switch off pre-compiled headers. Do that, and stdafx.h should stay out
of your hair.
People do, you know - and it isn't as hard as you're trying to make out.
Why? It's just C. Anyone can write a Win32 C program, yes?
Every single bloomin' time you create a project, your first job is to
switch off pre-compiled headers. Do that, and stdafx.h should stay out
of your hair.
People do, you know - and it isn't as hard as you're trying to make out.
C
Chris Hills
Malcolm McLean said:
I have see some very complex graphics program compiled with it. (All
portable C too) I also know some very good compilers written using it.
C
Chris Hills
IT is free.... that was why I suggested it as a good option. If you
get on well with the free one you can expand out to the pay one later if
needed
M
Mark McIntyre
Thats a question you'd have to ask Microsoft. I played with the
"Express" versions a while back (I think I still have the CDs) and
fairly quickly decided it would be more fruitful to build a linux box
and install gcc (or for that matter, more fruitful to wallop myself
over the head with a rubber truncheon ...)
if only....
I doubt they use the Express version for real. Given, frinstance that
its forbidden by the licensing conditions...
--
Mark McIntyre
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
C
Carramba
Chris Hills skrev:
This is so long from obvious as it can get... why not try really free
development tool like eclipse and with CDT you have c/c++ for windows
there is simple installer at http://cdt-windows.sourceforge.net/
This is so long from obvious as it can get... why not try really free
development tool like eclipse and with CDT you have c/c++ for windows
there is simple installer at http://cdt-windows.sourceforge.net/
R
Rui Maciel
Malcolm said:
Not to mention that, along the proprietary "extensions" to the language, it
doesn't even come close to support C99. I don't even understand why so many
people even bother installing that thing.
Rui Maciel
F
Frodo Baggins
Please don't flame me, but what's wrong with emacs/gcc/gdb as a
development environment? Sure, a bit of work with glue/polish may be
needed.
Regards,
Frodo B
B
Ben Pfaff
Frodo Baggins said:
I believe that Mark was saying that GCC is better than
Microsoft's "Express" product.
J
jacob navia
Frodo said:
"A bit of work with glue/polish" yeah...
o gcc is one of the slowest compilers I have ever used.
It keeps getting slower at each new version. You can't
stop progress can you?
o emacs will not update a definitions data base (it has none)
and tell you automatically the fields of a structure when
you type "foo->" or "foo.".
o emacs will not go to ANY definition by just a mouse click.
It will go to some definitions if you keep manually the
ctags data base updated. True, you can put it in the makefile.
o emacs will not generate a makefile for you. Neither has any
notion of project management.
o gdb is a pile of shit. It is one of the worst debuggers
(in terms of user interface) I have ever used. More or less
at the level of dbx...
gdb will not show you automatically the modified variables
of the program. In lcc-win32's debugger for instance, you
can see the variables the program is modifying WITHOUT
typing anything. This is very easy to do but gdb is unable
to do that. And emacs+gdb doesn't do it either. You have to
type "print myLongVariable..." AD NAUSEUM!!!
For people living in a refrigerator and running software at the
level of the 1980 or so, gdb + vi + gcc is OK. I used that environment
when I worked here in France in 1986-1989. And I was so happy
to leave that environment!!!
Unfortunately I have been forced to come back and use it when I
ported the compiler to linux 64 bits. What a nightmare.
jacob
J
jacob navia
Ajinkya said:
Do not use lcc-win32.
It has several drawbacks:
o Free, you can download it and install it in a few minutes. The
whole compiler is just 6MB download can you imagine? You will NOT
be able to take a coffee during the download, and go skiing until
it installs.
o It is a C compiler, so it will not put stdafx stuff automatically,
it will NOT complain when you use standard C functions like fopen,
etc.
o It comes with an IDE with project management, windowed debugger,
resource editor, and all you need for windows programming. (And yes,
all that in that 5MB!).
o You can use precision up to 100 digits automatically. Long double
precision (80 bits floating point), and many other goodies.
1) Statistical library
2) Special functions library
3) Linear algebra library
4) Network functions library
o You will find that most people in comp.lang.c will agree with me:
DO NOT USE LCC-WIN32!!!
http://www.cs.virginia;edu/~lcc-win32
C
Chris Hills
[QUOTE="Carramba said:
This is so long from obvious as it can get...[/QUOTE]
There is no point arguing with FOSS Devotees. They can't see reality.
It's not free.... it has a license (and many conditions) as well.
The OS and all the libraries are made by MS. They do a free compiler
to work with them Why wouldn't you use it?
It is like saying if you want to work on Gnome on Linux not to use GCC.
Though technically GCC is old technology compared to the MS Visual
tools.