Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > Compiler thats works in Windows 7

Reply
Thread Tools

Compiler thats works in Windows 7

 
 
Nick Keighley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-02-2011
On Sep 30, 9:44*am, AK <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Its been a really long time since I came back here and the reason is
> simply that I was working with Java when I started working. Now that I
> have entered a grad school, I am in the process of returning to C.
>
> So, heres the big question. Back in the days when I last used C, I
> used to use the Bloodshed Dev-C++ IDE that comes(or at-least used to)
> with the MIngw package. However, things have changed and my new laptop
> runs Windows 7. So, I am looking for a compiler(preferably an IDE)
> that I can use as I am re-learning C. I am hoping to get a compiler
> that sticks to the standards.


which standard. For maximum portability use C89. The latest standard
is C99 but it isn't so widely supported.

>So, any suggestions?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-02-2011
Le 02/10/11 12:01, Nick Keighley a écrit :
> On Sep 30, 9:54 am, jacob navia<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Le 30/09/11 10:44, AK a écrit :
>>
>>> HI guys,

>>
>>> Its been a really long time since I came back here and the reason is
>>> simply that I was working with Java when I started working. Now that I
>>> have entered a grad school, I am in the process of returning to C.

>>
>>> So, heres the big question. Back in the days when I last used C, I
>>> used to use the Bloodshed Dev-C++ IDE that comes(or at-least used to)
>>> with the MIngw package. However, things have changed and my new laptop
>>> runs Windows 7. So, I am looking for a compiler(preferably an IDE)
>>> that I can use as I am re-learning C. I am hoping to get a compiler
>>> that sticks to the standards. So, any suggestions?

>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Anoop

>>
>> The lcc-win compiler implements most of C99. It has an IDE, windowed
>> debugger, and it can be downloaded at no cost.

>
> ...for non-commercial use
>
>> http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32/

>


Exactly.

But you did NOT add any commentary when the Microsoft compiler
was proposed even if I can read in their license:

<quote>
MSDN software may not be used in production environments, which require
regular, non-MSDN licenses for the software being used—for example, a
software license and client access licenses (CALs) for Windows Server 2008.
<end quote>

Obviously when it is done by Microsoft it is OK, even if they have
much more stricter rules than lcc-win...

Ahhhh the regulars, what pile of sh$t!

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Nick Keighley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-02-2011
On Oct 2, 11:21*am, jacob navia <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Le 02/10/11 12:01, Nick Keighley a crit :
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 30, 9:54 am, jacob navia<(E-Mail Removed)> *wrote:
> >> Le 30/09/11 10:44, AK a crit :

>
> >>> HI guys,

>
> >>> Its been a really long time since I came back here and the reason is
> >>> simply that I was working with Java when I started working. Now that I
> >>> have entered a grad school, I am in the process of returning to C.

>
> >>> So, heres the big question. Back in the days when I last used C, I
> >>> used to use the Bloodshed Dev-C++ IDE that comes(or at-least used to)
> >>> with the MIngw package. However, things have changed and my new laptop
> >>> runs Windows 7. So, I am looking for a compiler(preferably an IDE)
> >>> that I can use as I am re-learning C. I am hoping to get a compiler
> >>> that sticks to the standards. So, any suggestions?

>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Anoop

>
> >> The lcc-win compiler implements most of C99. It has an IDE, windowed
> >> debugger, and it can be downloaded at no cost.

>
> > ...for non-commercial use

>
> >>http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32/

>
> Exactly.
>
> But you did NOT add any commentary when the Microsoft compiler
> was proposed even if I can read in their license:
>
> <quote>
> MSDN software may not be used in production environments, which require
> regular, non-MSDN licenses for the software being used for example, a
> software license and client access licenses (CALs) for Windows Server 2008.
> <end quote>
>
> Obviously when it is done by Microsoft it is OK, even if they have
> much more stricter rules than lcc-win...


wasn't aware of it. Though my reading of what you quote doesn't seem
topreclude me selling software I've developed using Visual C++
Express.

> Ahhhh the regulars, what pile of sh$t!


ah Navia the paranoid.

If you simply included the words "free for non-commercial use" when
you posted about your compiler I wouldn't have to do it for you.
 
Reply With Quote
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-02-2011
Le 02/10/11 18:43, Robert Wessel a écrit :
>>> The lcc-win compiler implements most of C99. It has an IDE, windowed
>>>> debugger, and it can be downloaded at no cost.
>>>
>>> ...for non-commercial use
>>>
>>>> http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32/
>>>

>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> But you did NOT add any commentary when the Microsoft compiler
>> was proposed even if I can read in their license:
>>
>> <quote>
>> MSDN software may not be used in production environments, which require
>> regular, non-MSDN licenses for the software being used—for example, a
>> software license and client access licenses (CALs) for Windows Server 2008.
>> <end quote>
>>
>> Obviously when it is done by Microsoft it is OK, even if they have
>> much more stricter rules than lcc-win...
>>
>> Ahhhh the regulars, what pile of sh$t!

>
>
> That's not correct. Visual Studio Express *can* be used for general
> software development.
>


I went to:

http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudi...al-cpp-express

Then I went to "License" and I arrived at
http://www.microsoft.com/download/en...ng=en&id=13350

Then I clicked in the PDF button and I got the document where that quote
comes from.

Maybe there is another (not shown) license, who knows.

In any case you can use my software to compile anything and sell your
programs that remain your property.

Schools and Universities pay a license fee when they use my compiler
for a class. Companies pay a license when they use my compiler for
business.

So what?

You don't agree? You find it outrageous?

I really do not care.



> What you're referencing above is the software that's made available to
> MSDN subscribers. For example, the MSDN subscription that I have
> gives me access to almost all MS products, and license keys for those
> products, but only for development use. So I can install big versions
> Windows Server and SQL Server (and anything else I feel like) on a
> development machine and develop and test against those to my heart's
> content. The license prohibits me from using those in a production
> role (IOW, I can't use any of the dozens of license for WS included in
> my MSDN subscription for our company's file server, but I can set up a
> bunch of test servers).


Well, that's the same as I do, but if they do it is OK and when I do it
it is not.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-02-2011
Nick Keighley <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> On Sep 30, 9:44Â*am, AK <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Its been a really long time since I came back here and the reason is
>> simply that I was working with Java when I started working. Now that I
>> have entered a grad school, I am in the process of returning to C.
>>
>> So, heres the big question. Back in the days when I last used C, I
>> used to use the Bloodshed Dev-C++ IDE that comes(or at-least used to)
>> with the MIngw package. However, things have changed and my new laptop
>> runs Windows 7. So, I am looking for a compiler(preferably an IDE)
>> that I can use as I am re-learning C. I am hoping to get a compiler
>> that sticks to the standards.

>
> which standard. For maximum portability use C89. The latest standard
> is C99 but it isn't so widely supported.


Agreed. On the other hand, many compilers support large subsets of C99,
and a few support essentially all of it.

Your options are:

1. Use only C89/C90. Whatever compiler you're using, invoke it in
strict C90 mode (for gcc: "-ansi -pedantic"; for other compilers, see
their documentation). Avoid writing any code that conflicts with C99;
for example, provide prototypes for all functions (a very good idea
regardless), don't use "inline" or "restrict" as identifiers, and a few
other things. This should give you maximum portability.

*Some* C99-specific features can be implemented (more or less) in C90.
For example, <http://www.lysator.liu.se/c/q8/index.html> is a C90
implementation of C99's <stdint.h>. You can create something that acts
very similarly to C99's "bool" with:
typedef enum { false, true } bool;
(there are subtle differences, but straightforward usage should be ok).

2. Use some, but not all, C99 features. Do some research on all the
compilers your code is likely to be compiled with, and find out what
C99-specific features they support. Consider using

#if __STDC__VERSION >= 199901L

to test for C99 compliance, falling back to C90 when necessary
and possible. Note that if you need to use Microsoft's C compiler,
the subset of C99 you'll be able to use might be very small.

3. Use C99. This will restrict your code to C99-conforming
compilers. As time passes, the set of compilers you can use
*should* increase, but uptake has been disappointingly slow.
Keep an eye on the development of the C201X standard; with luck,
it *might* get better support in the coming years than C99 did.
<http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1570.pdf> is the
latest draft. C201X proposes to make some features optional --
including some that are mandatory in C99.

All these options are potentially more complex if you need to use
compiler-specific extensions.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Geoff
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-02-2011
On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 03:01:59 -0700 (PDT), Nick Keighley
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sep 30, 9:54*am, jacob navia <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Le 30/09/11 10:44, AK a écrit :
>>
>> > HI guys,

>>
>> > Its been a really long time since I came back here and the reason is
>> > simply that I was working with Java when I started working. Now that I
>> > have entered a grad school, I am in the process of returning to C.

>>
>> > So, heres the big question. Back in the days when I last used C, I
>> > used to use the Bloodshed Dev-C++ IDE that comes(or at-least used to)
>> > with the MIngw package. However, things have changed and my new laptop
>> > runs Windows 7. So, I am looking for a compiler(preferably an IDE)
>> > that I can use as I am re-learning C. I am hoping to get a compiler
>> > that sticks to the standards. So, any suggestions?

>>
>> > Thanks
>> > Anoop

>>
>> The lcc-win compiler implements most of C99. It has an IDE, windowed
>> debugger, and it can be downloaded at no cost.

>
>...for non-commercial use
>

.... the mentioning of which was completely unnecessary since it's
stated prominently on the referenced link.

>> http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32/


....unless, of course, you just wanted to push Jacob's button.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ian Collins
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-02-2011
On 10/ 3/11 07:20 AM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>
> 3. Use C99. This will restrict your code to C99-conforming
> compilers. As time passes, the set of compilers you can use
> *should* increase, but uptake has been disappointingly slow.
> Keep an eye on the development of the C201X standard; with luck,
> it *might* get better support in the coming years than C99 did.
> <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1570.pdf> is the
> latest draft. C201X proposes to make some features optional --
> including some that are mandatory in C99.


In practice the set of targets without a standard C compiler is limited
to those small embedded targets which lack either a gcc port, or a
modern compiler.

When designing an embedded system, just avoid them unless the price
point is really critical.

--
Ian Collins
 
Reply With Quote
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-03-2011
Le 03/10/11 07:42, Robert Wessel a écrit :
>
>
> As I understand your licensing, it's *not*. The VS Express products
> are free for commercial use, while yours are not.


The problem is that you suppose a different license for express products
than for MSDN products. I searhed that site and could NOT find any
OTHER license as the MSDN license. Could you please send me a pointer
to that famous "express" license? Where is it?


 
Reply With Quote
 
Nick Keighley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-03-2011
On Oct 2, 7:11*pm, jacob navia <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Le 02/10/11 18:43, Robert Wessel a écrit :



> >>> The lcc-win compiler implements most of C99. It has an IDE, windowed
> >>>> debugger, and it can be downloaded at no cost.

>
> >>> ...for non-commercial use


<snip>

> In any case you can use my software to compile anything and sell your
> programs that remain your property.
>
> Schools and Universities pay a license fee when they use my compiler
> for a class. Companies pay a license when they use my compiler for
> business.
>
> So what?
>
> You don't agree? You find it outrageous?


it's your product you can license it/sell it any way you please. I'm
paid to write software so I'm hardly going to object to anyone else
making money out of software they write. I simply want to you to
advertise your product correctly.

> I really do not care.


seems you do or you wouldn't be throwing such a paddy.

<snip MS terms and condictions>

> Well, that's the same as I do, but if they do it is OK and when I do it
> it is not.


no it's the same. Its just Microsoft don't advertise their product on
clc.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Nick Keighley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-03-2011
On Oct 2, 8:46*pm, Geoff <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 03:01:59 -0700 (PDT), Nick Keighley
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >On Sep 30, 9:54*am, jacob navia <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


<snip>

> >> The lcc-win compiler implements most of C99. It has an IDE, windowed
> >> debugger, and it can be downloaded at no cost.

>
> >...for non-commercial use

>
> ... the mentioning of which was completely unnecessary since it's
> stated prominently on the referenced link.


opinions vary. I don't think it would cost him much to add the phrase.
As stated I think his standard puff is slightly misleading.

> >>http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32/

>
> ...unless, of course, you just wanted to push Jacob's button.


no. But it's an amusing side effect!

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
When I turn on my PC, it works, works, works. Problem! Fogar Computer Information 1 01-17-2006 12:57 AM
Can I open a zip file thats within a jar file? U. George Java 16 01-07-2006 02:50 AM
JMX Monitor thats writes to file JSParker1@hotmail.co.uk Java 0 08-03-2005 08:26 AM
After rebooting my PC works, works, works! Antivirus problem? Adriano Computer Information 1 12-15-2003 05:30 AM
Debugging a page thats in a virtual directory Tom Pester ASP .Net 0 10-08-2003 02:25 PM



Advertisments