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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #11099 > unrolled thread

Compiler thats works in Windows 7

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

Contents

  Compiler thats works in Windows 7 AK <anoopkammaran@gmail.com> - 2011-09-30 01:44 -0700
    Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-30 10:54 +0200
      Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-02 03:01 -0700
        Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-10-02 12:21 +0200
          Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-02 05:42 -0700
          Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-02 11:43 -0500
            Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-10-02 20:11 +0200
              Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-03 00:42 -0500
                Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-10-03 08:49 +0200
                  Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-10-03 12:31 -0700
              Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-03 00:23 -0700
                Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-10-03 10:33 +0200
                  Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 AK <anoopkammaran@gmail.com> - 2011-10-03 09:29 -0700
                    Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-10-03 18:42 +0200
                      Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 tea strainer <nospam@nospam.com> - 2011-10-05 19:22 +0000
                        Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-10-05 22:08 +0200
                          Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 "James" <no@spam.invalid> - 2011-10-05 13:17 -0700
                            Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-10-05 22:31 +0200
                            Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 AK <anoopkammaran@gmail.com> - 2011-10-05 19:47 -0700
                              Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-05 22:57 -0500
                              Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 "James" <no@spam.invalid> - 2011-10-06 00:06 -0700
                              Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-10-06 19:37 +0000
                          Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-10-05 16:22 -0700
                        Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 gordonb.d74xa@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-10-05 21:16 -0500
                          Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 AK <anoopkammaran@gmail.com> - 2011-10-05 19:50 -0700
                          Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 "James" <no@spam.invalid> - 2011-10-05 21:05 -0700
                          Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-10-06 10:49 +0200
                            Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-10-06 16:21 +0200
        Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-10-02 12:46 -0700
          Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-03 00:26 -0700
    Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-09-30 11:06 +0200
      Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-30 13:03 +0200
    Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 Karthik Bharadwaj <nomail@fightspam.org> - 2011-09-30 07:41 -0600
      Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-30 19:11 +0200
    Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-09-30 08:03 -0700
      Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-09-30 16:18 +0000
        Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-09-30 14:37 -0400
    Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-02 03:04 -0700
      Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-10-02 11:20 -0700
        Re: Compiler thats works in Windows 7 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-03 08:56 +1300

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#11305

"AK" <anoopkammaran@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:319da1d8-141d-49f1-b721-0e74cedbe057@dd6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 6, 1:17 am, "James" <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
[...]

> > They don't charge you for a product key.

> Thats right. They just want a valid email address and the windows
> genuine advantage check.

Touché.

[...] 

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

#11313

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 19:47:54 -0700, AK wrote:

> On Oct 6, 1:17 am, "James" <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>> "jacob navia" <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:j6idf3$jfs$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>>
>> > Le 05/10/11 21:22, tea strainer a écrit :
>> [...]
>> >> Microsoft make a free compiler,
>>
>> > From the "free" compiler license we can read:
>>
>> > b. Trial Edition.  The initial installation of the software is a
>> > trial edition. You may convert your trial rights at any time by
>> > obtaining a product key from Microsoft.  The trial software will
>> > present conversion options to you thirty (30) days after you install
>> > the trial software.  After the expiration of the 30-day trial period,
>> > without conversion, the trial software will stop running.
>>
>> They don't charge you for a product key.
>>
>> [...]
> 
> Thats right. They just want a valid email address and the windows
> genuine advantage check. The fact that they are giving away free
> software, even if its limited version is a great improvement over how
> things used to be about 5 years ago. Ofcourse to get all the free stuff,
> they expect you to buy a genuine windows license, which is not difficult
> considering the fact that it comes pre-installed in most PCs that you
> buy. It is very difficult these days to find a PC to buy which does not
> come with the pre-installed windows.
> 
> Anoop

What was the adage again? "If you get something
for free, you're the product being traded"?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ____________________
< I demand IMPUNITY! >
 --------------------
  \
   \
       ___  
     {~._.~}
      ( Y )
     ()~*~()   
     (_)-(_)   
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

#11295

On Wed, 05 Oct 2011 22:08:06 +0200, jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net>
wrote:

>> Microsoft make a free compiler,
>
>
> From the "free" compiler license we can read:
>
>b.	Trial Edition.  The initial installation of the software is a
>trial edition. You may convert your trial rights at any time by
>obtaining a product key from Microsoft.  The trial software will
>present conversion options to you thirty (30) days after you install
>the trial software.  After the expiration of the 30-day trial period,
>without conversion, the trial software will stop running.
>

The registration of the product key is also free.

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

#11298

>>> I just tried installing lcc-win64 in my Windows&  x64. However, when I
>>> tried opening it, it showed me an error that it can't find a compiler.
>>>
>>> Anoop
>> 
>> You have to install the 32 bit version first.
>> 
>> I have to fix that, but I do not have a lot of time right now.
> 
> Great. And for this "high quality" software, we find :
> 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.
> 
> Great.

You want fixes in a couple of hours or days?  That is awfully
difficult to get from any commercial vendor even if you pay a lot
from the compiler *AND* pay tens of thousands of dollars a year on
a support contract.  And they still may run into a problem that
they can't fix that fast.  You're much more likely to get a problem
that takes months or years to fix.  Jacob's been providing amazing
service (for any amount of money) right on this newsgroup.  Now, some
of the whining has been less than professional, but bugs in the
compiler still get fixed in days, not months.  You got a workaround
immediately.

> Microsoft make a free compiler, it will be guaranteed to work well on 
> Windows because Microsoft also make Windows. You want people to pay money 
> for an inferior product? This is outrageous!

And how fast would they fix a problem like this?  Probably no fix until
the next "Patch Tuesday" at the absolute best.  More likely, it's at
least 6 months before they are scheduled to release a maintenance
version of the compiler.

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

#11300

On Oct 6, 7:16 am, gordonb.d7...@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
> >>> I just tried installing lcc-win64 in my Windows&  x64. However, when I
> >>> tried opening it, it showed me an error that it can't find a compiler.
>
> >>> Anoop
>
> >> You have to install the 32 bit version first.
>
> >> I have to fix that, but I do not have a lot of time right now.
>
> > Great. And for this "high quality" software, we find :
> > 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.
>
> > Great.
>
> You want fixes in a couple of hours or days?  That is awfully
> difficult to get from any commercial vendor even if you pay a lot
> from the compiler *AND* pay tens of thousands of dollars a year on
> a support contract.  And they still may run into a problem that
> they can't fix that fast.  You're much more likely to get a problem
> that takes months or years to fix.  Jacob's been providing amazing
> service (for any amount of money) right on this newsgroup.  Now, some
> of the whining has been less than professional, but bugs in the
> compiler still get fixed in days, not months.  You got a workaround
> immediately.
>
> > Microsoft make a free compiler, it will be guaranteed to work well on
> > Windows because Microsoft also make Windows. You want people to pay money
> > for an inferior product? This is outrageous!
>
> And how fast would they fix a problem like this?  Probably no fix until
> the next "Patch Tuesday" at the absolute best.  More likely, it's at
> least 6 months before they are scheduled to release a maintenance
> version of the compiler.

6 months is if the problem is critical. Since a workaround exists it
would be about a year for the next "Service Pack" to come out.

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

#11303

"Gordon Burditt" <gordonb.d74xa@burditt.org> wrote in message 
news:zt2dnccXAvH2khDTnZ2dnUVZ_o-dnZ2d@posted.internetamerica...
[...]
> You want fixes in a couple of hours or days?  That is awfully
> difficult to get from any commercial vendor even if you pay a lot
> from the compiler *AND* pay tens of thousands of dollars a year on
> a support contract.  And they still may run into a problem that
> they can't fix that fast.  You're much more likely to get a problem
> that takes months or years to fix.  Jacob's been providing amazing
> service (for any amount of money) right on this newsgroup.  Now, some
> of the whining has been less than professional, but bugs in the
> compiler still get fixed in days, not months.  You got a workaround
> immediately.

Great point!  :^)

[...] 

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

#11308

Why are you always snipping attribution lines? Do you think
Usenet conventions are beneath you?

Gordon Burditt wrote:

> You want fixes in a couple of hours or days?  That is awfully
> difficult to get from any commercial vendor even if you pay a lot
> from the compiler *AND* pay tens of thousands of dollars a year on
> a support contract.  And they still may run into a problem that
> they can't fix that fast.  You're much more likely to get a problem
> that takes months or years to fix.

If one is willing to "pay tens of thousands of dollars a year on
a support contract" then one would be wiser using GCC, and paying
a consultant to fix/enhance the software on one's own schedule.

> Jacob's been providing amazing
> service (for any amount of money) right on this newsgroup.

You praise him for spamming the group? The mind boggles  o_O

> And how fast would they fix a problem like this?  Probably no fix until
> the next "Patch Tuesday" at the absolute best.  More likely, it's at
> least 6 months before they are scheduled to release a maintenance
> version of the compiler.

When "a problem like this" is "the software refuses to install",
the "problem" tends to get fixed rather quickly, most of the time
during QA testing.

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

#11311

Le 06/10/11 10:49, Noob a écrit :
>> Jacob's been providing amazing
>> service (for any amount of money) right on this newsgroup.
>
> You praise him for spamming the group? The mind boggles  o_O
>

I am not spamming anyone moron.

Read the question that started this thread.

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

#11177

On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 03:01:59 -0700 (PDT), Nick Keighley
<nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Sep 30, 9:54 am, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> 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.

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

#11188

On Oct 2, 8:46 pm, Geoff <ge...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Oct 2011 03:01:59 -0700 (PDT), Nick Keighley
> <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 30, 9:54 am, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> 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!

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

#11102

AK wrote:

> Subject: Compiler that works in Windows 7

http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/en-us/

If you were happy with MinGW, it is still actively maintained.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MinGW
http://www.mingw.org/

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

#11103

Le 30/09/11 11:06, Noob a écrit :
> AK wrote:
>
>> Subject: Compiler that works in Windows 7
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/en-us/
>
`
It must be said that that compiler doesn't support standard C (C99)

> If you were happy with MinGW, it is still actively maintained.
>

The compiler supports C99 syntax but its standard library is not
C99 so problems with appear, specially with printf...


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MinGW
> http://www.mingw.org/

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

#11107

On 9/30/2011 2:44 AM, AK wrote:
> 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


If you're going to be coding exclusively in C, Code::Blocks is the best 
one, and is actively maintained. It is available for both win/linux 
platforms
http://www.codeblocks.org/

If you're going to be using a bit of c++ as well, download microsoft 
visual studio express edition (assuming windows) or go with code blocks 
(win/linux).

Eclipse with CDT is good too. And you can program in a multitude of 
languages with one IDE. debugger integration is pretty good in eclipse 
too. so if you're gonna be coding in c, c++, java and want to learn 
python n stuff, + generate documentation and do a million other things 
from one place, I would suggest you get eclipse.

http://www.eclipse.org

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

#11112

Le 30/09/11 15:41, Karthik Bharadwaj a écrit :
>
> If you're going to be using a bit of c++ as well, download microsoft
> visual studio express edition (assuming windows) or go with code blocks
> (win/linux).
>

That compiler doesn't support standard C. (C99)

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

#11108

On Sep 30, 4:44 am, AK <anoopkamma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

Well, if you're going to *graduate* school, you must eschew the bonds
of an IDE and learn to work with the tools from a more civilized era.
That means vi, bash, make, sed, preferably on a unix workstation,
although installing linux on a laptop is good as well; MinGW on
windows is passible as an alternative with a unix compatible shell,
but don't advertise that fact.  Be sure to use -pedantic with gcc to
ensure strict conformance; extensions are beneath you.  All your
programs should use a sophisticated but easy to use set of command-
line options, or an interactive character-driver menu system; none of
this fancy and non-standard GooEY stuff.  Most importantly, remember
that using a debugger is forbidden; use your intellect and scratch
paper, and as a last resort if you absolutely have to, well placed
print statements.

It's imperative that you start reading the C90 and C99 standards now.
Once you have a grasp on those documents, browse the usenet archives
for comp.lang.c and comp.std.c to learn how to speak standardese.  If
one of your fellow students asks a mundane C question, the correct
response is to quote chapter and verse from the appropriate place in
the standard.  Observe other more experienced members of this usenet
group for how to articulate these answers.  On a side note, stop using
Google groups and invest in a newsgroup reader.

Lastly, if capable, all graduate students who program should grow a
beard.  What do you see that's in common between Kernighan, Ritchie,
Thompson, ...?  You may ignore this requirement if you are female.

Best regards,
John D.

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

#11111

In <973209e0-4e84-44ed-aa8e-0b16ba322873@i30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> writes:

> Well, if you're going to *graduate* school, you must eschew the bonds

I smell a troll.

-- 
John Gordon                   A is for Amy, who fell down the stairs
gordon@panix.com              B is for Basil, assaulted by bears
                                -- Edward Gorey, "The Gashlycrumb Tinies"

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

#11122

John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> wrote:
> In <973209e0-4e84-44ed-aa8e-0b16ba322873@i30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Well, if you're going to *graduate* school, you must eschew the bonds
> 
> I smell a troll.

Dwarf. Trolls don't have beards.
-- 
Larry Jones

Pitiful.  Just pitiful. -- Calvin

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

#11170

On Sep 30, 9:44 am, AK <anoopkamma...@gmail.com> 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?

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

#11175

Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> writes:
> On Sep 30, 9:44 am, AK <anoopkamma...@gmail.com> 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) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

#11178

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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web