Dev-C++ compiling problem in Vista

[apaticul]

I've adressed this problem awhile ago, just to get some arrogant
answers here,
tipically.

Anyway, I feel like compiling some c programs again and I still can't
compile them in Vista.

The only advice I could find on the Internet was this:
"1)add "C:\Dev-Cpp\libexec\gcc\mingw32\3.4.2" to the binaries location
under the directories tab
2)go to the programs tab and add c:\dev-cpp\bin\ to all the listings.

I then was able to compile my c programs completely and have them run
correctly"
from this site
http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=4156252

Even though I did exacly the same shit as above, it still not
working,
I use Windows Vista Basic.

(P.S. to whoever doesn't fit this topic here, ****-off)

 

[Martin Ambuhl]

(P.S. to whoever doesn't fit this topic here, ****-off)

Welcome to my killfile. You now may **** off.

 

[Ian Collins]

Welcome to my killfile. You now may **** off.

Now come on don't hold back, if you have something to say, say it

 

[Antoninus Twink]

I've adressed this problem awhile ago, just to get some arrogant
answers here, tipically.

Don't let it get to you - there are a disproportionate number of
arrogant bastards in this group, it's true, but also a few who are
interested in discussing real-world C rather than language-lawyering and
points-scoring.

Anyway, I feel like compiling some c programs again and I still can't
compile them in Vista.

The only advice I could find on the Internet was this:
"1)add "C:\Dev-Cpp\libexec\gcc\mingw32\3.4.2" to the binaries location
under the directories tab
2)go to the programs tab and add c:\dev-cpp\bin\ to all the listings.

I then was able to compile my c programs completely and have them run
correctly"
from this site
http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=4156252

Even though I did exacly the same shit as above, it still not
working,
I use Windows Vista Basic.

What exactly goes wrong? Does your shell not find the compiler at all,
or does the compiler or linker produce an error message, or what?

I'm not a Windows expert, but I believe its command-line facilities are
extremely primitive and difficult to use. You might consider trying
Jacob Navia's free compiler and IDE, available at
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32/
I think it's meant to Just Work(tm).

 

[santosh]

Antoninus Twink wrote:

I'm not a Windows expert, but I believe its command-line facilities
are extremely primitive and difficult to use.

Not with Windows PowerShell, whose facilities are modelled after the
Unix shells and even expanded upon in some areas. Also cmd.exe is quite
capable, but COMMAND.COM is indeed "primitive" by modern CLI standards.

You might consider
trying Jacob Navia's free compiler and IDE, available at
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32/
I think it's meant to Just Work(tm).

Undoubtedly it's meant to...

 

[apaticul]

Don't let it get to you - there are a disproportionate number of
arrogant bastards in this group, it's true, but also a few who are
interested in discussing real-world C rather than language-lawyering and
points-scoring.









What exactly goes wrong? Does your shell not find the compiler at all,
or does the compiler or linker produce an error message, or what?

I'm not a Windows expert, but I believe its command-line facilities are
extremely primitive and difficult to use. You might consider trying
Jacob Navia's free compiler and IDE, available athttp://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32/
I think it's meant to Just Work(tm).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

cc1 C:\Dev-Cpp\cc1 unrecognized command line option "-lang-c" This is
the line I've got from Dev-C++

Besides, I've downloaded now Visual C++ 2008 and, go figure,
it won't compile either.
Here, however, I get: Build: 0 succeeded, 0 failed, 0 up-to-date, 0
skipped
when I compile hello.c

 

[apaticul]

Don't let it get to you - there are a disproportionate number of
arrogant bastards in this group, it's true, but also a few who are
interested in discussing real-world C rather than language-lawyering and
points-scoring.









What exactly goes wrong? Does your shell not find the compiler at all,
or does the compiler or linker produce an error message, or what?

I'm not a Windows expert, but I believe its command-line facilities are
extremely primitive and difficult to use. You might consider trying
Jacob Navia's free compiler and IDE, available athttp://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32/
I think it's meant to Just Work(tm).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

great, now my last message is having a delay?

 

[apaticul]

Don't let it get to you - there are a disproportionate number of
arrogant bastards in this group, it's true, but also a few who are
interested in discussing real-world C rather than language-lawyering and
points-scoring.









What exactly goes wrong? Does your shell not find the compiler at all,
or does the compiler or linker produce an error message, or what?

I'm not a Windows expert, but I believe its command-line facilities are
extremely primitive and difficult to use. You might consider trying
Jacob Navia's free compiler and IDE, available athttp://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32/
I think it's meant to Just Work(tm).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

anyhow, I will repost this message.
cc1 C:\Dev-Cpp\cc1 unrecognized command line option "-lang-c"
this line above was the error in Dev-C++

I've also downloaded Visual C++ 2008 just now, and I can't compile
successfully with it, either.
all I get now is:
Build: 0 succeeded, 1 failed, 0 up-to-date, 0 skipped when I use
"Built solution" and than
"start without debugging" a simple "hello.c" program

 

[apaticul]

anyhow, I will repost this message.
cc1 C:\Dev-Cpp\cc1 unrecognized command line option "-lang-c"
this line above was the error in Dev-C++

I've also downloaded Visual C++ 2008 just now, and I can't compile
successfully with it, either.
all I get now is:
Build: 0 succeeded, 1 failed, 0 up-to-date, 0 skipped when I use
"Built solution" and than
"start without debugging" a simple "hello.c" program- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Oh, well, finally it works with the Visual C++ 2008 compiler.
I compiled hello.cpp program.
Thanks for your support. It seems like sometimes a few bad words do
more
in 1 hour than 5 month of waiting for help here.
I apologyse for that.
Cheers

 

[apaticul]

Oh, well, finally it works with the Visual C++ 2008 compiler.
I compiled hello.cpp program.
Thanks for your support. It seems like sometimes a few bad words do
more
in 1 hour than 5 month of waiting for help here.
I apologyse for that.
Cheers- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

as such, for those that have to deal with the same problems, here is a
tutorial in images
http://www.learncpp.com/cpp-tutorial/06-writing-your-first-program/

Visual C++ 2008 compiler you can gen google for it, its on Microsofts'
Website
its free and they give you the register number to register it in 1
month time to keep it free.

 

[Flash Gordon]

(e-mail address removed) wrote, On 03/05/08 11:57:

Oh, well, finally it works with the Visual C++ 2008 compiler.
I compiled hello.cpp program.

So you are not even doing C but C++ instead.

Thanks for your support. It seems like sometimes a few bad words do
more
in 1 hour than 5 month of waiting for help here.

Ask in the right place and it won't take months of waiting or swearing.

I apologyse for that.
Cheers

Rather than apologising try asking in appropriate places. There are
plenty of them.

 

[Tomás Ó hÉilidhe]

I use Windows Vista Basic.

A programmer that uses Vista? :O

Vista is a hog of an operating system. Downgrade to Windows XP or get
yourself a Linux distro.

 

[jacob navia]

A programmer that uses Vista? :O

Vista is a hog of an operating system. Downgrade to Windows XP or get
yourself a Linux distro.

After downloading the last ubuntu, I stay with vista, sorry.
Last ubuntu
1) did not recognize the network card
2) Did not install X windows
3) you have to figure out that the system comes with a
mysterious root password. Since under unix you can't do
anything without the root password, you should know that
to change the root password you should open a shell and type
sudo passwd root
Obviously all unix exports will know that, but if you aren't...
4) After that it goes to tell me that the only resolution you have
is 1280x1024. Even if my monitor natively supports 1900x1200. No
way to change it.
5) First screen X windows shows a blank screen. No icons, no mouse,
no nothing. But if you reboot, the second time it will show you
a login screen , and then, the blank screen. Obviously you reboot
one time more and MIRACLE, you see a desktop. Nice isn't it?
6) If you left the screen saver run, you are doomed. Once the screen
saver takes over, there is NO AMOUNT of mouse clicks, keyboard
pressing, that will wake the machine up. Solution+
Type ctrl+Alt+F1, then you will see a text screen.
login.
type
ps ex
then see which process is the gnome display manager (gdm)
kill it with the command
kill -9 <gdm process number>
or just reboot...
7) The provided "media player" doesn't recognize the mp3 format.
You need to go to the internet, download some gizmo, install it,
see why it doesn't work, figure out if ubuntu still supports
"alsa" or if it only supports a new ubuntu sound standard... then
figure out which gizmo supports ubuntu mp3, etc etc.
8) Video playing doesn't work either.
9) But if you have an electric guitar you can tune it using some
provided software...

Happily I do not need ubuntu since I do not develop there.
By the way, the system comes without compiler. You have to download
gcc, then you have to figure out that you need the libraries, then gdb,
then you have

well, FORGET IT!

I rebooted into Vista.

 

[Tomás Ó hÉilidhe]

After downloading the last ubuntu, I stay with vista, sorry.

I'm had similar pain-in-the-ass problems with Ubuntu and Kubuntu.

Extremely strangely, the best Linux distro I've used isn't even
intended to be used as a proper operating system.

Backtrack is "network penetrating distribution" which is intended to
be used as a boot CD for testing network security.

When you boot it up first time though, it works perfect. Desktop looks
good, sound card works, networking works. I ended up installing it to
my hard disk.

At the moment I'm dual-booting: One partition has Win XP, the other
has Backtrack Linux.

I'll never EVER use Vista. Ever.

 

[Flash Gordon]

jacob navia wrote, On 03/05/08 14:17:

After downloading the last ubuntu, I stay with vista, sorry.
Last ubuntu
1) did not recognize the network card

I've had that with Windows and Linux. In both cases the answer is the
same, find the correct drivers if they don't come with the OS.

2) Did not install X windows

By default it does, so you must have told it (deliberately or not) to
not install it.

3) you have to figure out that the system comes with a
mysterious root password. Since under unix you can't do
anything without the root password,

Wrong. Ubuntu is designed so that you can do everything without the root
password. For instance run up the GUI package manager and it prompts you
for *your* password and *that* allows you to install packages.

you should know that
to change the root password you should open a shell and type
sudo passwd root
Obviously all unix exports will know that, but if you aren't...

If you aren't you won't be using the shell as root so it does not
matter. However, it's in the docs I'm sure.

4) After that it goes to tell me that the only resolution you have
is 1280x1024. Even if my monitor natively supports 1900x1200. No
way to change it.

Same as with the networking, if true you just install the correct
drivers, just as is the case with Windows.

5) First screen X windows shows a blank screen. No icons, no mouse,
no nothing. But if you reboot, the second time it will show you
a login screen , and then, the blank screen. Obviously you reboot
one time more and MIRACLE, you see a desktop. Nice isn't it?

You obviously bolloxed up the install. Obviously you were doing strange
things or point 2 would not have been true. Bollocks up a Windows
install and it doesn't work.

6) If you left the screen saver run, you are doomed. Once the screen

<snip>

See previous comments.

7) The provided "media player" doesn't recognize the mp3 format.

Works fine for me.

You need to go to the internet, download some gizmo, install it,
see why it doesn't work, figure out if ubuntu still supports
"alsa" or if it only supports a new ubuntu sound standard... then
figure out which gizmo supports ubuntu mp3, etc etc.
8) Video playing doesn't work either.

Works fine for me.

9) But if you have an electric guitar you can tune it using some
provided software...

Happily I do not need ubuntu since I do not develop there.
By the way, the system comes without compiler. You have to download
gcc, then you have to figure out that you need the libraries, then gdb,
then you have

Wrong again. It *is* part of the distribution, just not installed by
default. The same applies to various pieces of SW distributed as part of
Windows.

well, FORGET IT!

I rebooted into Vista.

Bollocks up an install of *any* OS and you will have major problems with
it. By default, however, Ubuntu and other Linux distros do a good job of
detecting HW and installing correctly.

All off topic here of course, so this will be my only post on the subject.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

After downloading the last ubuntu, I stay with vista, sorry.
Last ubuntu
1) did not recognize the network card
2) Did not install X windows

<Etc.>

Yes. Ubuntu is friggin' weird. Totally nuts in my view.
It's friggin' Windows calling itself Linux.

Obvious advice: Get yourself a real distro.

ObParanoia: It is scary that Ubuntu seems to be getting the mindshare
these days. Maybe it is an MS plot...

 

[Eligiusz Narutowicz]

jacob navia wrote, On 03/05/08 14:17:

I've had that with Windows and Linux. In both cases the answer is the
same, find the correct drivers if they don't come with the OS.


By default it does, so you must have told it (deliberately or not) to
not install it.


Wrong. Ubuntu is designed so that you can do everything without the
root password. For instance run up the GUI package manager and it
prompts you for *your* password and *that* allows you to install
packages.


If you aren't you won't be using the shell as root so it does not
matter. However, it's in the docs I'm sure.


Same as with the networking, if true you just install the correct
drivers, just as is the case with Windows.


You obviously bolloxed up the install. Obviously you were doing
strange things or point 2 would not have been true. Bollocks up a
Windows install and it doesn't work.


<snip>

See previous comments.


Works fine for me.


Works fine for me.


Wrong again. It *is* part of the distribution, just not installed by
default. The same applies to various pieces of SW distributed as part
of Windows.

He is right. The system does not come with a compiler. You must install
it via aptitude or synaptic.

Bollocks up an install of *any* OS and you will have major problems
with it. By default, however, Ubuntu and other Linux distros do a good
job of detecting HW and installing correctly.

All off topic here of course, so this will be my only post on the
subject.

?

 

[Antoninus Twink]

4) After that it goes to tell me that the only resolution you have
is 1280x1024. Even if my monitor natively supports 1900x1200. No
way to change it.

You can edit /etc/X11/xorg.conf and put all the supported modes onto the
obvious lines.

 

[santosh]

After downloading the last ubuntu, I stay with vista, sorry.

Strange considering leading PC makers like Dell are trying their hardest
to continue with XP and introduce Linux, but are more or less supplying
Vista only to please Microsoft.

 

[santosh]

Kenny McCormack wrote:

Yes. Ubuntu is friggin' weird. Totally nuts in my view.
It's friggin' Windows calling itself Linux.

Obvious advice: Get yourself a real distro.

Yes, Slackware obviously.

ObParanoia: It is scary that Ubuntu seems to be getting the mindshare
these days. Maybe it is an MS plot...

Deplorable indeed. I wonder why everyone doesn't build their own Linux
system like Gerard Beekmans. That's how real hackers do it!