Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #150379 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Usenet Advocate #1337" <test@dont-email.me> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-03-03 22:38 -0500 |
| Last post | 2020-03-06 12:11 -0800 |
| Articles | 10 on this page of 70 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Best C compiler "Usenet Advocate #1337" <test@dont-email.me> - 2020-03-03 22:38 -0500
Re: Best C compiler Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2020-03-04 04:36 +0000
Re: Best C compiler Autist <autist69@gmail.com> - 2020-03-04 07:16 +0100
Re: Best C compiler "Usenet Advocate #1337" <test@dont-email.me> - 2020-03-04 18:48 -0500
Re: Best C compiler Autist <autist69@gmail.com> - 2020-03-05 06:14 +0100
Re: Best C compiler already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2020-03-04 01:05 -0800
Re: Best C compiler Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-03-04 11:04 +0000
Re: Best C compiler Real Troll <Real.Troll@Trolls.com> - 2020-03-04 07:25 -0400
Re: Best C compiler Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-03-04 11:35 +0000
Re: Best C compiler gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2020-03-04 13:10 +0000
Re: Best C compiler chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2020-03-04 06:12 -0800
Re: Best C compiler Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-03-04 10:00 -0800
Re: Best C compiler Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2020-03-04 22:59 -0400
Re: Best C compiler gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2020-03-04 13:07 +0000
Re: Best C compiler fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-03-04 06:26 -0800
Re: Best C compiler Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-04 18:08 +0100
Re: Best C compiler chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2020-03-04 09:26 -0800
Re: Best C compiler Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-04 18:31 +0100
Re: Best C compiler scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-03-04 22:31 +0000
Re: Best C compiler Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-05 06:44 +0100
Re: Best C compiler Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2020-03-05 03:20 -0400
Re: Best C compiler Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-05 08:22 +0100
Re: Best C compiler scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2020-03-05 16:30 +0000
Re: Best C compiler Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-05 17:40 +0100
Re: Best C compiler Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-03-05 08:55 -0800
Re: Best C compiler Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-05 18:47 +0100
Re: Best C compiler chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2020-03-05 10:06 -0800
Re: Best C compiler Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-05 20:12 +0100
Re: Best C compiler chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2020-03-05 11:53 -0800
Re: Best C compiler Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-03-06 01:56 -0800
Re: Best C compiler Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-06 14:41 +0100
Re: Best C compiler Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-03-06 05:48 -0800
Re: Best C compiler chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2020-03-06 06:23 -0800
Re: Best C compiler Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-03-06 07:01 -0800
Re: Best C compiler Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-06 16:09 +0100
Re: Best C compiler Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-03-06 09:52 -0800
Re: Best C compiler Guillaume <message@bottle.org> - 2020-03-06 19:11 +0100
Re: Best C compiler Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-03-08 09:10 +0000
Re: Best C compiler Guillaume <message@bottle.org> - 2020-03-08 16:08 +0100
Re: Best C compiler Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-03-08 18:21 +0000
Re: Best C compiler Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2020-03-08 14:57 -0400
Re: Best C compiler Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-03-08 19:32 +0000
Re: Best C compiler Christopher Collins <ccollins476ad@gmail.com> - 2020-03-09 12:44 -0700
Re: Best C compiler Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-03-10 07:22 +0000
Re: Best C compiler "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2020-03-08 14:34 -0700
tsan (was Re: Best C compiler) Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> - 2020-03-11 21:55 +0000
Re: tsan (was Re: Best C compiler) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2020-03-11 15:21 -0700
Re: Best C compiler Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-06 15:27 +0100
Re: Best C compiler Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-03-07 12:15 -0500
Re: Best C compiler Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-03-07 17:50 +0000
Re: Best C compiler Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-03-07 13:00 -0500
Re: Best C compiler Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-03-08 06:16 -0700
Re: Best C compiler Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-03-08 13:39 +0000
Re: Best C compiler Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-03-10 13:44 -0700
Re: Best C compiler Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-03-11 03:34 +0000
Re: Best C compiler Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-03-11 03:27 -0700
Re: Best C compiler Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-03-11 15:28 +0000
Re: Best C compiler Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2020-03-12 02:51 -0700
Re: Best C compiler Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-03-12 11:58 +0000
Re: Best C compiler Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-03-27 07:01 -0700
Re: Best C compiler Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2020-03-11 16:08 +0000
Re: Best C compiler Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2020-03-08 09:17 +0000
Re: Best C compiler Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-03-05 23:32 +0000
Re: Best C compiler David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-03-06 12:37 +0100
Re: Best C compiler fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2020-03-04 14:52 -0800
Re: Best C compiler jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2020-03-04 22:09 +0100
Re: Best C compiler Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2020-03-05 08:48 +0100
Re: Best C compiler Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2020-03-05 12:29 +0100
Re: Best C compiler David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-03-05 12:41 +0100
Re: Best C compiler "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2020-03-06 12:11 -0800
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-11 16:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <l28aG.451790$BA5.322118@fx21.am4> |
| In reply to | #150471 |
On 11/03/2020 10:27, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Wednesday, 11 March 2020 03:34:28 UTC, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On Sunday, 8 March 2020 13:39:49 UTC, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> If you go down the route of writing scripts for the debugger, then you >>>>> get bugs in the scripts. >>>> >>>> You make it sound inevitable. You may get bugs, and when you do they >>>> may be trivial and immediately obvious. You are not, I hope, advocating >>>> against optional functionality on the grounds that it can go wrong. >>>> >>> Adding options because it is technically possible to do so, without >>> any consideration of how easy the software is to use, isn't a route >>> to good design. Particularly if it is decided to provide a user >>> interface in the form of a scripting language. >> >> We largely agree. The fact that any script can have bugs is not, on its >> own, enough to ban embedded scripting from all applications. >> > No, but of all the interfaces that you can offer to the user, a scripting > interface probably offers the most flexibility combined with the worst > ease of use. Once scripts get above a certain very basic level of > complexity, the user, now a programmer, makes errors. That's the experience > of software engineering. > > However a debugger is in a special situation, in it is already designed > to remove bugs from a scripting language. > You're suggesting the script may itself require debugging? I would have thought that such scripts would be several magnitudes smaller than the main program being debugged, and in a softer, more user-friendly language with lots of run-time checking. That can happen in some scenarios; just don't let any auto-conf tools be responsible for generating debug-language scripts otherwise they could well be larger than your program!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-08 09:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnr69e0g.km3.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #150431 |
On Sat, 2020-03-07, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 3/6/20 4:56 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Thursday, 5 March 2020 17:48:08 UTC, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>> Depends on the code. Debuggers are useful if the error occurs on the
>>>> first few iterations of the code.
>>>
>>> Do you know conditional breakpoints ?
>>>
>>>> However if it takes many iterations before the bug becomes evident,
>>>> a printf trace of the program's state can be more useful.
>>>
>>> Yeeees, a printf every iteration for a lot iterations.
>>> Makes _perfectly_ sense to me.
>>> printf()-debugging is a shit.
>>>
>> Say that we have the line
>> y = 1/x;
>>
>> x goes to zero and it crashes. Now we could break on x == 0, but
>> that won't tell us what happened to x before it went to zero. Or we
>> could break on fabs(x) < epsilon, but what do we use for epsilon,
>> how do we set up the condition in the debugger, and will it give us
>> false positives?
>>
>> if we put in the line
>> printf("x = %e\n", x);
>>
>> then we get a list of all values of x before x goes to zero. There
>> might be ten thousand of them. But likely things start to go wrong
...
> Another alternative, that doesn't generate as long of an output is to
> instrument the code to save the values of x in an array being used as a
> circular buffer. Then when x takes on the bad value, you can look at
> just the recent history of the changes.
Or keep the printf but (at runtime) feed standard output through gzip.
That sort of output is likely to compress really well, like 50:1.
/Jorgen
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-05 23:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87eeu62xaa.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #150412 |
Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> writes: >>> It's likely because developing without an IDE is a >>> pain when you are not writing very small programs. > >> While it may be painful for _you_, you don't speak >> for anyone else. > > Debugging with a command-line debugger is painful if you already had > the comfort of a real debugger - for everyone ! And some programmers > use printf-debugging; that's even more horrible. Logging can have advantages in some situations. Logs can be post-processed to investigate bugs. For example, you might match up the allocation and release of resources. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-06 12:37 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r3tcmc$lqm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #150419 |
On 06/03/2020 00:32, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> writes: > >>>> It's likely because developing without an IDE is a >>>> pain when you are not writing very small programs. >> >>> While it may be painful for _you_, you don't speak >>> for anyone else. >> >> Debugging with a command-line debugger is painful if you already had >> the comfort of a real debugger - for everyone ! And some programmers >> use printf-debugging; that's even more horrible. > > Logging can have advantages in some situations. Logs can be > post-processed to investigate bugs. For example, you might match up the > allocation and release of resources. > Yes, indeed. There are a great many types of debugging tools and strategies, each with the advantages and disadvantages. I think Bonita probably does just one type of programming, and thinks that what works best for her automatically applies to everyone else. This is, of course, ridiculous. In my line of work, debuggers with breakpoints are often very useful. So is printf-style debugging (usually through a serial link to a PC, sometimes over a network port). So are saving logs in flash for later analysis. Sometimes I will use a few pins on my board connected to an oscilloscope. Sometimes I use flash patterns on an LED. And that is just for small-systems embedded programming - for other kinds of programming, there are many other options. (I once came within about half a foot of killing someone as a result of hitting a breakpoint in a debugger. Sometimes you really do not want your program to stop.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-04 14:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <23bd1389-1a69-4799-9b7a-405caf1273d5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #150390 |
W dniu środa, 4 marca 2020 18:08:23 UTC+1 użytkownik Bonita Montero napisał: > > im quite happy with gcc version for windows > > (mingw) except the oficial instalation pages > > Which IDE ? i use small text editor and bat files to run compilation.. its ideal for me as for now, i mean i didnt found anything that feels better to me as for now sporadically i also write my own text editor "fred/darcy" (hovever i discobered i need only to code whan im well rested not more time so i got a break now (yawn))
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-04 22:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r3p5e6$o2k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #150379 |
Le 04/03/2020 à 04:38, Usenet Advocate #1337 a écrit : > What is the best C compiler in your opinion right now? > Linux, *BSD, or windows... The best compiler in the world is lcc-win. It is the only one that pays my bills! :-) jacob
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-05 08:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r3qas2$c3e$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #150379 |
Am 04.03.20 um 04:38 schrieb Usenet Advocate #1337: > What is the best C compiler in your opinion right now? > Linux, *BSD, or windows... As others have alread stated this depend a lot on your requirements. There are many C compilers out there, and for most, there exists a resonable use case. I did a comparison of 4 compilers targeting the STM8 two years ago (and intend to update it soon): http://www.colecovision.eu/stm8/compilers.shtml While SDCC is doing quite well there, still for each of the other compilers, there are some uses cases where it is the best choice. Philipp
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-05 12:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r3qnq3$kss$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #150406 |
> I did a comparison of 4 compilers targeting the STM8 two years ago > (and intend to update it soon): > http://www.colecovision.eu/stm8/compilers.shtml > While SDCC is doing quite well there, still for each of the other > compilers, there are some uses cases where it is the best choice. If you're doing embedded-development the quality of the IDE and the remote-debugging facilities is also very important.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-05 12:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <r3qogr$sg8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #150407 |
On 05/03/2020 12:29, Bonita Montero wrote: >> I did a comparison of 4 compilers targeting the STM8 two years ago >> (and intend to update it soon): >> http://www.colecovision.eu/stm8/compilers.shtml >> While SDCC is doing quite well there, still for each of the other >> compilers, there are some uses cases where it is the best choice. > > If you're doing embedded-development the quality of the IDE and the > remote-debugging facilities is also very important. > Some compilers are delivered as part of a bigger toolchain package, including debugger and IDE. Others are not. (IAR comes with an IDE, SDCC does not.) IDE comparisons are going to be a good deal more subjective than Philipp was trying to be in this comparison, and it would unreasonable to include IDEs or debuggers in this test. You are of course correct that the IDE (or ease of integration with your own choice of IDE) and debugger are important when choosing an embedded toolchain. But there are also many other factors that can be as important or more important. A comparison cannot look at them all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-03-06 12:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <r3uapp$iel$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #150379 |
On 3/3/2020 7:38 PM, Usenet Advocate #1337 wrote: > What is the best C compiler in your opinion right now? > Linux, *BSD, or windows... Actually: http://www.smorgasbordet.com/pellesc/ is pretty nice because it actually handles C11 atomics and threads. Can you find another C compiler that does this?
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web