Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #13169 > unrolled thread

Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-11-12 01:22 -0800
    Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-12 10:36 +0100
      Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-11-12 02:09 -0800
        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-12 11:37 +0100
          Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-11-12 08:02 -0800
            Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-13 10:24 +1100
            Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-13 10:29 +0100
          Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-12 15:06 -0700
      Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development "ankh" <star67@venus.gov> - 2011-11-12 22:43 -0600
        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-14 21:57 +0100
          Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-15 10:16 +1300
          Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development "Jo" <none@none.none> - 2011-11-19 22:59 -0600
            Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-20 12:58 +0000
              Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201111.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-11-21 07:30 +0100
                Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development "Jo" <none@none.none> - 2011-11-21 01:01 -0600
              Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development "Jo" <none@none.none> - 2011-11-21 00:51 -0600
              Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Brian <nospam@nospam.com> - 2011-11-22 16:47 +0000
                Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-22 12:10 -0500
                  Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-22 20:24 +0100
                Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Richard Sanders <lnr729@gmail.com> - 2011-11-22 10:58 -0800
                  Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-24 00:27 -0800
                Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-22 20:13 +0100
                  Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-23 23:13 +0100
                Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Friedrich Dominicus <just-for-news-frido@q-software-solutions.de> - 2011-11-23 06:28 +0100
                  Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-23 02:45 -0800
                    Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-11-23 10:57 +0000
                      Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-24 01:31 -0800
                Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-23 10:58 +0000
                Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-24 00:26 -0800
      Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-14 01:33 -0800
        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 17:13 +0000
          Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Joe Wright <joewwright@comcast.net> - 2011-11-14 14:36 -0500
          Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-15 00:56 -0800
    Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-11-13 02:59 +0000
      Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Joe Wright <joewwright@comcast.net> - 2011-11-12 22:13 -0500
        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development "ankh" <star67@venus.gov> - 2011-11-13 00:03 -0600
        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-14 21:55 +0100
          Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-15 00:56 -0800
          Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-11-15 07:05 -0800
            Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-15 14:42 -0800
              Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-16 00:17 +0100
              Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-11-15 17:50 -0800
      Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-12 20:38 -0700
        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-11-13 00:00 -0800
          Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-13 01:23 -0700
          Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-13 09:10 +0000
            Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-13 10:33 +0100
              Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-13 23:03 +1300
                Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-13 11:17 +0100
            Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-10 11:29 -0800
              Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-11 09:57 +1300
                Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-10 14:26 -0800
                  Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-11 11:38 +1300
                    Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-10 16:01 -0800
                      Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-11 13:18 +1300
                        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-10 22:50 -0600
                        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-12 11:25 -0800
                      Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-11 03:45 +0000
                        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-12 12:06 -0800
                          Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-12 20:02 +0000
                            Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development John Tsiombikas <nuclear@member.fsf.org> - 2011-12-13 06:28 +0000
                              Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-13 00:32 -0600
                                Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-12-13 10:57 +0100
                  Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-10 23:20 +0000
                    Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-12 12:38 -0800
                      Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-12 20:15 +0000
                        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-12 13:51 -0800
                          Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-12 22:32 +0000
                            Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development John Tsiombikas <nuclear@member.fsf.org> - 2011-12-13 06:40 +0000
                              Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-13 09:19 +0000
                              Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-17 00:52 -0800
                            Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-14 13:00 -0800
                              Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-14 21:53 +0000
                              Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-15 11:18 +1300
                                Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-15 11:16 -0800
                                  Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-15 19:35 +0000
                                    Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-15 13:03 -0800
                                    Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-12-16 03:55 -0800
                                      Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-16 19:50 +0000
                      Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-12 16:54 -0600
                      Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-13 12:03 +1300
                        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-12 17:19 -0600
                          Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-15 11:52 -0800
                      Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-12-12 18:34 -0500
                        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-12-13 09:43 +0100
                        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-15 11:33 -0800
              Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-10 21:13 +0000
                Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-10 15:10 -0800
                  Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-10 23:31 +0000
                  Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-12-11 01:57 +0100
                    Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-12 11:46 -0800
                      Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-12-12 15:23 -0500
                        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-12 20:02 +0000
                        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-12 14:00 -0800
                          Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-12-12 17:24 -0500
                        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-12 17:06 -0600
                          Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-12-12 18:16 -0500
              Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-12-11 09:03 -0500
                Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-11 08:57 -0800
                Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-12 12:11 -0800
                  Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-12-12 14:25 -0800
                    Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-14 13:44 -0800
    Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development "ankh" <star67@venus.gov> - 2011-11-12 22:42 -0600

Page 1 of 6  [1] 2 3 4 5 6  Next page →

#13169 — Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development

Help! I've written a fair amount of C code over the years and always
interfaced it with other C. Now I'm looking to interface it with non-C
code I'm struggling to find a compiler to do what I want. I'm looking
for a compiler with these qualities:

* to compile standard, portable, C to object code
* simple object file output (not linked)
* Intel-format 32-bit asm output would be good
* selectable subroutine linkage options (calling conventions)
* simple demands on the OS so relatively easily ported to another OS
* works under various environments - Dos, Unix, Windows (without
Cygwin etc)
* reasonably effective at optimisation

and *above all*, a compiler that gets in the way as little as
possible. It should not compile for a certain target OS but merely
produce simple, lean, unencumbered, OS-agnostic object code, i.e.
object code that does just what the source code says and nothing more.

I'll generally link the object files together myself so a standard and
simple object format would be useful. I know most about Elf so that
would be ideal but not essential.

I've tried Open Watcom and gcc so far. Open Watcom is great at
providing different calling convention options but both Dos and
Windows versions have far too much mechanism surrounding them for my
liking and I can't get them to produce asm output. gcc is good on Unix
but looks very complex to port and I think it needs Cygwin on Windows.

In searching around I came across lcc and lcc-win. Remembering Jacob
posts here make me think about asking on this newsgroup. I hope the
query is just about close enough to being on topic! Any suggestions -
even partial matches to the list above - would be appreciated.

TIA,
James

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#13170

Le 12/11/11 10:22, James Harris a écrit :
> In searching around I came across lcc and lcc-win. Remembering Jacob
> posts here make me think about asking on this newsgroup. I hope the
> query is just about close enough to being on topic! Any suggestions -
> even partial matches to the list above - would be appreciated.
>

You will find mostly negative answers about my work in this group.

Anyway my compiler system has been used extensively as a back end
For instance for the Eiffel language by the SmartEiffel compiler
by ML4 (a 4GL language) and as a JIT for an SQL--> C database
engine.

I guess a JIT would be much better for your needs. I have one
for Windows, Linux, AIX, or Macintosh.

jacob

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13172

On Nov 12, 9:36 am, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
> Le 12/11/11 10:22, James Harris a écrit :
>
> > In searching around I came across lcc and lcc-win. Remembering Jacob
> > posts here make me think about asking on this newsgroup. I hope the
> > query is just about close enough to being on topic! Any suggestions -
> > even partial matches to the list above - would be appreciated.
>
> You will find mostly negative answers about my work in this group.

On the contrary. I remember people here rightly jumping to your
defence when someone raised a criticism.

> Anyway my compiler system has been used extensively as a back end
> For instance for the Eiffel language by the SmartEiffel compiler
> by ML4 (a 4GL language) and as a JIT for an SQL--> C database
> engine.
>
> I guess a JIT would be much better for your needs. I have one
> for Windows, Linux, AIX, or Macintosh.

A JIT? You mean for platform independence? From the name I imagine lcc-
win32 is kind of tied-in to Windows too much for my purposes but I'll
take a closer look.

James

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13173

Le 12/11/11 11:09, James Harris a écrit :
> On Nov 12, 9:36 am, jacob navia<ja...@spamsink.net>  wrote:
>> Le 12/11/11 10:22, James Harris a écrit :
>>
>>> In searching around I came across lcc and lcc-win. Remembering Jacob
>>> posts here make me think about asking on this newsgroup. I hope the
>>> query is just about close enough to being on topic! Any suggestions -
>>> even partial matches to the list above - would be appreciated.
>>
>> You will find mostly negative answers about my work in this group.
>
> On the contrary. I remember people here rightly jumping to your
> defence when someone raised a criticism.
>
>> Anyway my compiler system has been used extensively as a back end
>> For instance for the Eiffel language by the SmartEiffel compiler
>> by ML4 (a 4GL language) and as a JIT for an SQL-->  C database
>> engine.
>>
>> I guess a JIT would be much better for your needs. I have one
>> for Windows, Linux, AIX, or Macintosh.
>
> A JIT? You mean for platform independence? From the name I imagine lcc-
> win32 is kind of tied-in to Windows too much for my purposes but I'll
> take a closer look.
>
> James

A JIT is just a code generator that doesn't generate any object file.

You pass it a string of C code and it will produce in memory an
executable function that you can call right away.

Much better than DLLs or shared objects.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13187

On Nov 12, 10:37 am, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
> Le 12/11/11 11:09, James Harris a écrit :

...

> >> I guess a JIT would be much better for your needs. I have one
> >> for Windows, Linux, AIX, or Macintosh.
>
> > A JIT? You mean for platform independence? From the name I imagine lcc-
> > win32 is kind of tied-in to Windows too much for my purposes but I'll
> > take a closer look.

...

> A JIT is just a code generator that doesn't generate any object file.
>
> You pass it a string of C code and it will produce in memory an
> executable function that you can call right away.

I did say I wanted to generate object files.

> Much better than DLLs or shared objects.

Maybe but not for this application!

James

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13217

James Harris wrote:

> On Nov 12, 10:37 am, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
>> Le 12/11/11 11:09, James Harris a écrit :
> 
> ...
> 
>> >> I guess a JIT would be much better for your needs. I have one
>> >> for Windows, Linux, AIX, or Macintosh.
>>
>> > A JIT? You mean for platform independence? From the name I imagine lcc-
>> > win32 is kind of tied-in to Windows too much for my purposes but I'll
>> > take a closer look.
> 
> ...
> 
>> A JIT is just a code generator that doesn't generate any object file.
>>
>> You pass it a string of C code and it will produce in memory an
>> executable function that you can call right away.
> 
> I did say I wanted to generate object files.
> 
>> Much better than DLLs or shared objects.
> 
> Maybe but not for this application!
> 
> James

I would say GCC.

There is a DOS port called DJGPP.

There is a Windows port called MinGW which does not require Cygwin.  I have 
used MinGW under Windows XP without Cygwin installed.  Works fine.


www.mingw.org

For assembler code, you can use the included assembler GAS, or if you prefer 
(and I do too), NASM, which again, there are ports for DOS, Windows and 
Unix.

GCC and optionally NASM will do all that you require.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13238

Le 12/11/11 17:02, James Harris a écrit :
> On Nov 12, 10:37 am, jacob navia<ja...@spamsink.net>  wrote:
>> Le 12/11/11 11:09, James Harris a écrit :
>
> ...
>
>>>> I guess a JIT would be much better for your needs. I have one
>>>> for Windows, Linux, AIX, or Macintosh.
>>
>>> A JIT? You mean for platform independence? From the name I imagine lcc-
>>> win32 is kind of tied-in to Windows too much for my purposes but I'll
>>> take a closer look.
>
> ...
>
>> A JIT is just a code generator that doesn't generate any object file.
>>
>> You pass it a string of C code and it will produce in memory an
>> executable function that you can call right away.
>
> I did say I wanted to generate object files.
>
>> Much better than DLLs or shared objects.
>
> Maybe but not for this application!
>
> James

OK. I need much more information about what you want to do.

lcc is small and easy to port, and generates better code than other 
similar compilers. This goes, however, beyond the topic of this
newsgroup, I am being flagged here as being too "commercial",and
a discussion about te commercial advantages of my product
would be unwelcome here.

My email is

jacob at jacob dot remcomp dot fr

Thanks for your interest in my work.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13207

On 11/12/2011 3:37 AM, jacob navia wrote:
> Le 12/11/11 11:09, James Harris a écrit :
>> On Nov 12, 9:36 am, jacob navia<ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
>>> Le 12/11/11 10:22, James Harris a écrit :
>>>
>>>> In searching around I came across lcc and lcc-win. Remembering Jacob
>>>> posts here make me think about asking on this newsgroup. I hope the
>>>> query is just about close enough to being on topic! Any suggestions -
>>>> even partial matches to the list above - would be appreciated.
>>>
>>> You will find mostly negative answers about my work in this group.
>>
>> On the contrary. I remember people here rightly jumping to your
>> defence when someone raised a criticism.
>>
>>> Anyway my compiler system has been used extensively as a back end
>>> For instance for the Eiffel language by the SmartEiffel compiler
>>> by ML4 (a 4GL language) and as a JIT for an SQL--> C database
>>> engine.
>>>
>>> I guess a JIT would be much better for your needs. I have one
>>> for Windows, Linux, AIX, or Macintosh.
>>
>> A JIT? You mean for platform independence? From the name I imagine lcc-
>> win32 is kind of tied-in to Windows too much for my purposes but I'll
>> take a closer look.
>>
>> James
>
> A JIT is just a code generator that doesn't generate any object file.
>
> You pass it a string of C code and it will produce in memory an
> executable function that you can call right away.
>
> Much better than DLLs or shared objects.


granted, none of this will have much relevance to the OP.


yep, I have also done things along these lines (writing a JIT-based C 
compiler).

the problems I ran into were mostly that my C compiler took too long (vs 
a script language) due mostly to preprocessing/parsing headers (partly 
optimized via caching, but still expensive to rebuild), and also that my 
compiler and codegen were buggy, and I was sinking too much time into 
trying to optimize and debug them.

this eventually ended up leading mostly to me shifting most of my 
scripting/... effort back to my scripting language.


I had considered the possibility of a "C-like language" which would look 
like C and be mostly compatible (albeit not strictly conformant), with 
some alterations to allow it to be compiled much faster (it would treat 
"#include" more as a module import, rather than actually inlining and 
parsing the headers, as well as "reinterpreting" the declaration syntax).

however, I have not done much of anything with the idea yet.

granted, another (slightly less aggressive) strategy would be to use 
precompiled headers. but, I guess one could get pedantic and debate 
whether or not an implementation using precompiled headers is still "C" 
as well.


but, sadly, I have more important things to do, and my scripting 
language works plenty well enough (its C FFI is fairly decent).

probably, eventually my C compiler may just end up being moved to using 
the same back-end as my scripting language anyways.


or such...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13230

"jacob navia" <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote in message 
news:j9lem0$jrq$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> Le 12/11/11 10:22, James Harris a écrit :
>> In searching around I came across lcc and lcc-win. Remembering Jacob
>> posts here make me think about asking on this newsgroup. I hope the
>> query is just about close enough to being on topic! Any suggestions -
>> even partial matches to the list above - would be appreciated.
>>
>
> You will find mostly negative answers about my work in this group.
>
> Anyway my compiler system has been used extensively as a back end
> For instance for the Eiffel language by the SmartEiffel compiler
> by ML4 (a 4GL language) and as a JIT for an SQL--> C database
> engine.
>
> I guess a JIT would be much better for your needs. I have one
> for Windows, Linux, AIX, or Macintosh.
>
> jacob
>

The song remains the same, huh jake. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13315

Le 13/11/11 05:43, ankh a écrit :
> "jacob navia"<jacob@spamsink.net>  wrote in message
> news:j9lem0$jrq$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>> Le 12/11/11 10:22, James Harris a écrit :
>>> In searching around I came across lcc and lcc-win. Remembering Jacob
>>> posts here make me think about asking on this newsgroup. I hope the
>>> query is just about close enough to being on topic! Any suggestions -
>>> even partial matches to the list above - would be appreciated.
>>>
>>
>> You will find mostly negative answers about my work in this group.
>>
>> Anyway my compiler system has been used extensively as a back end
>> For instance for the Eiffel language by the SmartEiffel compiler
>> by ML4 (a 4GL language) and as a JIT for an SQL-->  C database
>> engine.
>>
>> I guess a JIT would be much better for your needs. I have one
>> for Windows, Linux, AIX, or Macintosh.
>>
>> jacob
>>
>
> The song remains the same, huh jake.
>
>

And you mean what by that sentence? What "song"? Who is "jake"?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13318

On 11/15/11 09:57 AM, jacob navia wrote:
>
> And you mean what by that sentence? What "song"? Who is "jake"?

Your troll filter needs retuning.

-- 
Ian Collins

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13632

jacob navia wrote:
> Le 13/11/11 05:43, ankh a écrit :
>> "jacob navia"<jacob@spamsink.net>  wrote in message
>> news:j9lem0$jrq$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>>> Le 12/11/11 10:22, James Harris a écrit :
>>>> In searching around I came across lcc and lcc-win. Remembering
>>>> Jacob posts here make me think about asking on this newsgroup. I
>>>> hope the query is just about close enough to being on topic! Any
>>>> suggestions - even partial matches to the list above - would be
>>>> appreciated.
>>>
>>> You will find mostly negative answers about my work in this group.
>>>
>>> Anyway my compiler system has been used extensively as a back end
>>> For instance for the Eiffel language by the SmartEiffel compiler
>>> by ML4 (a 4GL language) and as a JIT for an SQL-->  C database
>>> engine.
>>>
>>> I guess a JIT would be much better for your needs. I have one
>>> for Windows, Linux, AIX, or Macintosh.
>>>
>>> jacob
>>>
>>
>> The song remains the same, huh jake.
>>
>>
>
> And you mean what by that sentence? What "song"? Who is "jake"?

You are not good at what you want to do. You should change careers. You 
are ineffectual and can't program yourself out of a paper bag (nor write 
about it). Just a thought. Maybe some extrospection was in order, but you 
can't seem to help yourself to save your own life or even leave a gleam 
of it on this planet, so I thought I'd try to help you a bit. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13641

"Jo" <none@none.none> wrote in message 
news:jaa1fn$2nj$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> jacob navia wrote:

>> And you mean what by that sentence? What "song"? Who is "jake"?
>
> You are not good at what you want to do. You should change careers. You 
> are ineffectual and can't program yourself out of a paper bag (nor write 
> about it). Just a thought.

No. Someone writes some software with a million downloads, but of course 
they are not good programmers! How many downloads do you have?

-- 
Bartc

 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13673

"BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

> No. Someone writes some software with a million downloads, but of course 
> they are not good programmers! How many downloads do you have?

Good marketing = good programmer? What does the number of downloads have to
do with anything? 

I hope your desktop is Windows and your phone is an iPhone.

I have navia killfiled but your statement is a ludicrous fallacy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13675

Fritz Wuehler wrote:
> "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>> No. Someone writes some software with a million downloads, but of
>> course they are not good programmers! How many downloads do you have?
>
> Good marketing = good programmer? What does the number of downloads
> have to do with anything?

That kind of thing annoys me totally. That anyone would think that anyone 
else would be so fucking stupid as to fall for well-known bullshit. THIS, 
really irks me. Makes me mad as hell. (Not that I am religious or suggest 
that some fucking stupid concept like that could be mad..... pfft).

>
> I hope your desktop is Windows and your phone is an iPhone.

I know you were tallking to him (Jake, not you as "him", you creep), but 
mine is. It causes me to get really drunk and lament here. Yes, Windows 
is like, well, it's not "like" that at all... Windows is my own and 
personal, "wheel of pain". And you fucking know it.

>
> I have navia killfiled but your statement is a ludicrous fallacy.

You shouldn't "bozo bin" anyone ever probably, unless they become 
bot-ish. IMO. I made no statement. I was just poking fun at him. He knows 
he can't hang. He doesn't need you to tell me that he can't, which you 
did. (I am soooo bad!!!!). 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13674

BartC wrote:
> "Jo" <none@none.none> wrote in message
> news:jaa1fn$2nj$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>> jacob navia wrote:
>
>>> And you mean what by that sentence? What "song"? Who is "jake"?
>>
>> You are not good at what you want to do. You should change careers.
>> You are ineffectual and can't program yourself out of a paper bag
>> (nor write about it). Just a thought.
>
> No. Someone writes some software with a million downloads, but of
> course they are not good programmers! How many downloads do you have?

You said it just right Bart. About your "human virus" existence, that is. 
Hello. What your mommie and daddie never told you, no could they, huh. 
You want to be "liked" maybe. Did I make someone think? That's bad huh. 
There is a quip on this board that goes something like: "make them think 
they are <whatever>, you are golden. Make them think, they will hate 
you". Something like that. Is it your turn to call me a narcissist? Bring 
it, I dare you. I'm not calling you stupid, I just do that on the 
internet. :P 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13787

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 12:58:29 +0000, BartC wrote:
> "Jo" <none@none.none> wrote in message
> news:jaa1fn$2nj$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>> jacob navia wrote:
> 
>>> And you mean what by that sentence? What "song"? Who is "jake"?
>>
>> You are not good at what you want to do. You should change careers. You
>> are ineffectual and can't program yourself out of a paper bag (nor
>> write about it). Just a thought.
> 
> No. Someone writes some software with a million downloads, but of course
> they are not good programmers! How many downloads do you have?

Sorry, but this is factually wrong.

Navia did not write the software. He bought the source code to lcc and 
the rights to exploit it commercially.

He has added almost nothing of value to it: only an ugly GUI and a few 
non-standard proprietary language additions that are useless to anyone 
who wants to write portable code.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13790

On 11/22/2011 11:47 AM, Brian wrote:
...
> Navia did not write the software. He bought the source code to lcc and 
> the rights to exploit it commercially.
> 
> He has added almost nothing of value to it: only an ugly GUI and a few 
> non-standard proprietary language additions that are useless to anyone 
> who wants to write portable code.

But there's apparently a lot of people who don't care about portable
code, and who like his non-standard additions a lot better than you or I
would.

Are his extensions proprietary? He's frequently recommended that they be
standardized. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if they are
indeed proprietary, he would have to hand over the intellectual property
rights to ISO in order for ISO to be able to incorporate them into a
future standard.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13794

Le 22/11/11 18:10, James Kuyper a écrit :
> On 11/22/2011 11:47 AM, Brian wrote:
> ...
>> Navia did not write the software. He bought the source code to lcc and
>> the rights to exploit it commercially.
>>
>> He has added almost nothing of value to it: only an ugly GUI and a few
>> non-standard proprietary language additions that are useless to anyone
>> who wants to write portable code.
>
> But there's apparently a lot of people who don't care about portable
> code, and who like his non-standard additions a lot better than you or I
> would.
>

Specially people that like 120 digits precision floats that can be used
with the same easy than normal doubles in C. Lcc-win has many 
engineering applications.

The JIT compiler is popular among software that generates C.

> Are his extensions proprietary?

No.

> He's frequently recommended that they be
> standardized.

Yes. That would be stupid if they were propietary...

> I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that if they are
> indeed proprietary, he would have to hand over the intellectual property
> rights to ISO in order for ISO to be able to incorporate them into a
> future standard.

My extensions can be copyrighted as propietary. Please, not everyone 
here has this american habit of software patents (Amazon patented
the "one click" button... Apple patented the desktop, whatever). I
haven't any patent pending.

And you know that Mr Kuyper.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#13792

On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:47:02 +0000 (UTC), Brian <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

>Navia did not write the software. He bought the source code to lcc and 
>the rights to exploit it commercially.

https://github.com/drh/lcc/blob/master/CPYRIGHT


>He has added almost nothing of value to it: only an ugly GUI and a few 
>non-standard proprietary language additions that are useless to anyone 
>who wants to write portable code.

I was happy with LCC-Win until I started to use FLTK that requires
C++. I found the IDE to be clean without a whole bunch of (dockable)
windows reducing screen realestate. I wish MinGw compiled as fast as
LCC-Win.

As for "proprietary language additions". You are not compelled to use
these non portable additions, they are purly optional.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 6  [1] 2 3 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web