A good compiler

[santosh]

TRY IT IT IS ONE OF THE BEST

http://www.codeblocks.org/features.shtml

Thanks but I can take my own descisions.

BTW, you've already advocated Code::Blocks three times in this thread, so
far. Don't you think that that's enough?

 

[Joachim Schmitz]

Richard Bos said:


The possibility that Elvis is living in Slough is not really an adequate
reason to bomb Slough. Slough, however, is a perfectly adequate reason
to bomb Slough.

Don't you think this is slightly off topic? ;-)

Bye, Jojo

 

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

I just suppress this warning. On the command line, add /wd4996

There should *be* no such warning, as the function is perfectly legitimate
and valid; warnings belong where things are iffy, questionable and/or
potentially incorrect. It's a QoI issue, and the Q of this I sucks in
that regard.

 

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

So it is _not_ actually freeware. It's shareware.
So what are the versions of Linux and Gcc you have to pay for?

*What* are they? Don't know, don't care. The relevant point is *where*
are they, and more specifically, noting that they are *not* here,

A search for "linux" in the *subject* line in comp.lang.c
yields 48 hits in my machine...

Kindly show them in here flogging their wares for commercial gain. What?
You can't? Right, because those are mostly people asking how to do things
in Linux, not spammers.

 

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

Excuse me. I will add a new clause.

It is free for non commercial use except for Mr Bjarnason.

Happy?

Nope - you're still here and, presumably, still spamming. My killfiling
you or not doesn't change that one iota.

 

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

Calling people "Mr" doesn't add any credence to your ridiculously
puerile and vindictive witch hunts.

Navia is a Mrs? A Ms?

 

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

Incidentally I have no idea how good or bad lcc-win32 is.

Neither do I; it might be the best compiler to ever have existed.

That is not
what is being argued here.
Correct.

It is just being smeared by FOSS people

Err... no, lcc isn't being smeared at all.

because it is not Gcc and you can under some circumstances (just like
most FOSS) pay for it.

So? If the authors of gcc were in here constantly harping their product,
knowing full well that doing so is just cheap advertising for financial
gain, they'd be getting the same sort of response: advertise elsewhere.

Why is this so hard to grasp? It has nothing to do with Navia or lcc or
CSS versus FLOSS; it is simply about not spamming commercial wares in the
forumn.

 

[Chris Hills]

Why is this so hard to grasp? It has nothing to do with Navia or lcc or
CSS versus FLOSS; it is simply about not spamming commercial wares in the
forumn.

It is no more commercial than FOSS. Just a different license

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

It is no more commercial than FOSS. Just a different license

So what? By all means s/commercial// if you like. This newsgroup is
about C, not about particular products, commercial or otherwise.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Why is this so hard to grasp? It has nothing to do with Navia or lcc or
CSS versus FLOSS; it is simply about not spamming commercial wares in the
forumn.

Well, not really. It's about persistent off-topic posts. The fact
that it's commercial isn't really relevant; the posts in question
would be just as inappropriate if lcc-win32 were open-source and
public-domain. (And, strictly speaking, it's not spam; spam is
identical articles cross-posted or multi-posted to multiple
newsgroups.)

 

[jacob navia]

So? If the authors of gcc were in here constantly harping their product,
knowing full well that doing so is just cheap advertising for financial
gain, they'd be getting the same sort of response: advertise elsewhere.

Why is this so hard to grasp? It has nothing to do with Navia or lcc or
CSS versus FLOSS; it is simply about not spamming commercial wares in the
forumn.

Can't you READ at least?

The ORIGINAL POSTER question was:

< quote >

Can anyone suggest me a good compiler for(c/cpp) for windows?

< end quote>

I replied in the context of THAT question, I am not spamming
anyone!!!!

There were several answers, Microsoft (a known non commercial compiler
of course), gcc variations and mine.

But it is only MY entry that provokes polemic to no end!

No one of the other posters was attacked by promoting a commercial
compiler, or a semi-commercial one. No. It is only me.

 

[jacob navia]

Nope - you're still here and, presumably, still spamming. My killfiling
you or not doesn't change that one iota.

Can't you READ at least?

The ORIGINAL POSTER question was:

< quote >

Can anyone suggest me a good compiler for(c/cpp) for windows?

< end quote>

I replied in the context of THAT question, I am not spamming
anyone!!!!

There were several answers, Microsoft (a known non commercial compiler
of course), gcc variations and mine.

But it is only MY entry that provokes polemic to no end!

No one of the other posters was attacked by promoting a commercial
compiler, or a semi-commercial one. No. It is only me.

 

[jacob navia]

There should *be* no such warning, as the function is perfectly legitimate
and valid; warnings belong where things are iffy, questionable and/or
potentially incorrect. It's a QoI issue, and the Q of this I sucks in
that regard.

You haven't ever questioned the quality of strcpy isn't it?

It goes beyond your comprehension that strcpy is unsafe by design?

 

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

No one of the other posters was attacked by promoting a commercial
compiler, or a semi-commercial one.

You are free to point out that an article is off-topic. If you do not do
so yourself, you can hardly criticise others for failing to do so.

 

[Chris Hills]

Chris Hills said:


So what? By all means s/commercial// if you like. This newsgroup is
about C, not about particular products, commercial or otherwise.

Then stop going on about lcc-win It is the only one you pick on.
It cost no one anything to download and try.
If they like it or not it is up to them.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

You haven't ever questioned the quality of strcpy isn't it?

It goes beyond your comprehension that strcpy is unsafe by design?

The strcpy function is no more unsafe than any other power tool. Yes, it
requires careful handling, but then so do many functions. Programming
is a difficult game to play well.

In practice, memcpy is often a better bet than strcpy - but not always.
The strcpy function still has its place.

 

[Chris Hills]

Well, not really. It's about persistent off-topic posts.

That is a different matter. However there is no concusses on what is OT
or OT here. (Let's not start that again but agree to differ)

The fact
that it's commercial isn't really relevant; the posts in question
would be just as inappropriate if lcc-win32 were open-source and
public-domain.

(And, strictly speaking, it's not spam; spam is
identical articles cross-posted or multi-posted to multiple
newsgroups.)

We have different definitions of spam. In the past it used to be
"advertising" that was multi posted but these days they get clever and
you can't tell if they are posting to multiple groups. They tend to
generate multiple posts to get around it.

 

[Chris Hills]

Can't you READ at least?

The ORIGINAL POSTER question was:

< quote >

Can anyone suggest me a good compiler for(c/cpp) for windows?

< end quote>

I replied in the context of THAT question, I am not spamming
anyone!!!!

There were several answers, Microsoft (a known non commercial compiler
of course), gcc variations and mine.

I agree. Incidentally I recommended the MS compiler but I have no
interest in it commercial or otherwise.

However the gcc varients were suggested by members o the FOSS community
who clearly have an interest (though not a direct commercial one) in GCC

But it is only MY entry that provokes polemic to no end!

That is what annoys me. I think I have often argued against you on
things but I agree with you in this case.

No one of the other posters was attacked by promoting a commercial
compiler, or a semi-commercial one. No. It is only me.

Or any compiler for that matter.

The problem seems to be you are advertising a compiler that is one you
produce. Therefore you can get around that by having a sig that says I
produce Lcc-win32 compiler with the URL. Then EVERYONE knows you "have
an interest"


BTW I sell compilers and supply FREE software & source code (that isn't
FOSS) Also I have other interest that I don't usually advertise.

 

[Keith Thompson]

You haven't ever questioned the quality of strcpy isn't it?

It goes beyond your comprehension that strcpy is unsafe by design?

Nonsense. It can be used unsafely, but (unlike, say gets), strcpy can
be used perfectly safely. You just have to make sure that the target
array is big enough to hold the source string, which is easy enough to
do.

 

[Chris Hills]

jacob navia said:


The strcpy function is no more unsafe than any other power tool. Yes, it
requires careful handling, but then so do many functions. Programming
is a difficult game to play well.

This gets us into the discussion about the "secure" library that MS has
pushed into an ISO Technical Report with their so-called safe
functions.....