Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #90795 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-22 17:29 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-07-23 12:35 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 219 — 33 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
GCC vs Clang The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> - 2016-07-22 17:29 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> - 2016-07-22 20:17 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-22 21:09 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 12:22 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-22 23:20 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 14:56 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-07-22 15:27 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-23 00:59 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-23 20:33 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 12:18 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-23 12:54 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 13:48 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-23 22:54 +0200
Killfiles: Learn how they work. They are your friend! (Was: GCC vs Clang) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-07-23 21:14 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 13:10 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-25 05:20 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 15:43 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-25 07:09 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-23 22:08 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 13:21 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-25 14:38 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-25 09:30 -0500
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-25 15:41 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 16:33 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-24 07:46 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-25 11:02 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 02:00 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 02:25 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2016-07-22 20:42 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-22 23:09 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-25 10:50 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-23 19:53 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 19:50 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-25 11:07 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-25 17:16 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-27 07:27 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-27 08:29 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-27 12:29 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 02:44 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 22:18 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 14:43 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-07-23 00:02 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-09 17:20 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-10 10:34 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-10 02:18 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2016-08-10 15:31 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 13:31 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-25 15:14 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-25 16:57 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-25 17:24 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-25 15:29 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-25 16:00 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-25 16:31 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-25 17:06 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-26 07:52 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-26 08:20 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-26 16:23 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-26 07:17 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-26 00:56 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-27 15:17 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-27 09:36 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-27 10:04 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-27 20:42 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-27 20:29 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-27 12:08 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-31 14:43 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 07:32 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-27 13:23 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 17:13 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-26 07:10 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-26 17:19 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-26 08:28 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-26 00:53 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-26 02:04 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-25 08:41 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-25 17:37 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-25 12:07 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-25 22:57 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-26 14:08 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-27 15:18 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-07-27 22:01 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-28 09:56 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-27 12:38 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 07:38 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-27 20:54 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 08:16 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-27 23:55 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-28 07:20 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 19:35 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-31 14:47 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-28 19:35 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-09 17:00 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang eva galois <eva.galois@yandex.ru> - 2016-08-09 21:15 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-10 10:42 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-08-10 12:52 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-10 06:59 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-10 16:52 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-10 11:22 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-10 11:31 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-10 14:01 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-10 07:12 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-10 17:09 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-10 09:40 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-10 09:55 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-10 22:51 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-10 09:36 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-10 17:52 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-10 11:49 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-10 20:28 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-10 13:06 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Tim Prince <tprince@computer.org> - 2016-08-10 18:14 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-10 21:53 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 10:35 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 11:00 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 09:36 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 18:54 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 12:11 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-11 20:42 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 19:53 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 12:41 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 20:21 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 13:11 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-11 21:46 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-11 20:49 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 13:57 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-11 23:10 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-14 09:07 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-14 10:50 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-14 13:47 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-14 16:29 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-14 23:00 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 14:04 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 14:11 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-14 15:29 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-14 18:13 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-15 00:14 -0700
Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" (Was: GCC vs Clang) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-08-15 08:04 +0000
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" (Was: GCC vs Clang) fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 01:15 -0700
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" (Was: GCC vs Clang) jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-17 16:50 +0200
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-08-15 07:27 -0600
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-15 15:00 +0100
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-15 10:29 -0400
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-15 10:22 -0500
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-15 17:46 +0200
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-15 17:41 +0100
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-15 09:47 -0700
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-08-15 11:11 -0600
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-15 13:28 -0400
Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor" fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 10:05 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-15 11:52 -0700
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-08-15 18:00 +0000
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 11:34 -0700
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 11:48 -0700
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 11:56 -0700
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 12:10 -0700
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 12:18 -0700
Re: Trolling (was Re: Keith's subtle use of the word "vendor") mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2016-08-17 08:44 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-15 09:38 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-08-17 08:24 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-08-17 17:44 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-15 17:25 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 23:09 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 23:16 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 23:28 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-14 10:50 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 02:30 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-14 14:16 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 07:28 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-08-14 18:05 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-08-14 20:18 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 11:54 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 12:05 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-14 21:16 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 12:37 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-14 20:59 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 13:48 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 13:58 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-14 02:53 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-08-14 11:34 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-08-14 14:07 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-14 12:36 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-14 14:03 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-15 09:48 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-15 11:46 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-08-15 10:45 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-11 14:11 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-11 14:06 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-08-11 15:16 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-11 14:02 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 22:20 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-08-12 16:58 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-12 17:05 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-11 23:24 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-11 22:58 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 16:08 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-12 00:21 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-11 17:29 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-12 12:23 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-08-12 11:43 +0100
Re: GCC vs Clang jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-08-13 08:37 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-11 13:58 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-11 16:28 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2016-08-12 01:12 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-08-12 20:15 +1200
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-12 12:29 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-08-12 12:45 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-08-12 04:30 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-12 08:09 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-12 14:49 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-12 05:00 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-08-12 15:03 +0200
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-12 08:22 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-12 09:14 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-08-12 10:23 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-08-12 11:29 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2016-08-12 05:19 -0700
Re: GCC vs Clang Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-25 10:53 -0400
Re: GCC vs Clang raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 09:55 +0000
Re: GCC vs Clang Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 12:35 -0700
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 22:01 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: GCC vs Clang? |
| Message-ID | <nnb3v9$6pa$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91144 |
Le 27/07/2016 à 17:18, Richard Bos a écrit : > (Pelle's lcc compiler) doesn't come with your extensions. Thanks Richard, that is true. You do NOT get: Extended 128 floating point (IEEE format) Extended 128 integer support Extended Qfloat (480 bits) floats All this extensions are implemented using a single feature: operator overloading. (Even if there is some compiler support for the numeric types) I am trying to design a general interface for accessing the compiler and changing the compiled language as you wish in an easy manner. Yes, I have development plans, and the talk about "my extensions" is a welcome opportunity to talk about them. Thanks again Richard :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 09:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: GCC vs Clang? |
| Message-ID | <5799d689.1422968@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #91193 |
jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote: > Le 27/07/2016 à 17:18, Richard Bos a écrit : > > (Pelle's lcc compiler) doesn't come with your extensions. > > Thanks Richard, that is true. > > You do NOT get: > operator overloading. And let's all thank the gods of simplicity and legibility for that! Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 12:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <cb1f60d9-0436-e0e3-6619-aec1dd0759fb@spamcop.net> |
| In reply to | #91027 |
On 7/25/2016 12:37 PM, BartC wrote:
[...]
> I don't get you. Obviously it is desirable for languages to be simple,
> self-contained and to Just Work, yes?
>
> So why be so accepting of systems that expect you to jump through so many
> hoops? Do you really want to put would-be C programmers off for life before
> they've even started? (Plenty of time for that when they start to learn the
> language!)
>
> So I would not recommend the use of gcc or clang for Windows; there are too
> many potential gotchas. Maybe for Linux IF it's pre-installed.
Last I checked, all I needed to do to install clang was:
sudo yum install clang
(Note that I've never used gcc or clang on Windows.)
--
Kenneth Brody
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 07:38 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <dvsgtnFakf4U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #91027 |
On 07/26/16 04:37 AM, BartC wrote: > On 25/07/2016 16:41, Keith Thompson wrote: >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >>> Huh? How is a beginner supposed to know anything about that? They will >>> expect a C compiler to come with everything needed to compile C programs >>> into something that can be run. >> >> They will if they listen to you. That's why the rest of us have to >> point out that you are mistaken. >> >> Ignorance is not a virtue, nor is it uncurable. > > I don't get you. Obviously it is desirable for languages to be simple, > self-contained and to Just Work, yes? > > So why be so accepting of systems that expect you to jump through so > many hoops? Do you really want to put would-be C programmers off for > life before they've even started? (Plenty of time for that when they > start to learn the language!) On Ubuntu: apt-get install clang Such a big hoop.... > So I would not recommend the use of gcc or clang for Windows; there are > too many potential gotchas. Maybe for Linux IF it's pre-installed. Just check the appropriate box on the Cygwin installer GUI. Yet another big hoop. -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 20:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nnb3i2$81m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91174 |
On 27/07/2016 20:38, Ian Collins wrote: > On 07/26/16 04:37 AM, BartC wrote: > On Ubuntu: > > apt-get install clang And someone else said it was 'sudo yum install clang'. Which didn't work. Probably yours doesn't either unless you stick 'sudo' in front. Anyway I'm talking about Windows. > Such a big hoop.... > >> So I would not recommend the use of gcc or clang for Windows; there are >> too many potential gotchas. Maybe for Linux IF it's pre-installed. > > Just check the appropriate box on the Cygwin installer GUI. Yet another > big hoop. Actually, having to install Cygwin *IS* a bloody big hoop! Roughly the size of the London Eye. If it's necessary to drag in most of an application's native OS to make it work, then that sounds an epic FAIL to me. We're talking about a program that takes a .c file and produces a .o file as output. Or are /you/ talking about *building* clang under Windows? I only want to compile Hello World. See, already it's no longer quite so straightforward. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 08:16 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <dvsj5aFakf4U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #91175 |
On 07/28/16 07:54 AM, BartC wrote: > On 27/07/2016 20:38, Ian Collins wrote: >> On 07/26/16 04:37 AM, BartC wrote: > >> On Ubuntu: >> >> apt-get install clang > > And someone else said it was 'sudo yum install clang'. Which didn't > work. Probably yours doesn't either unless you stick 'sudo' in front. Linux users tend to know which package manager their system uses... Even if they don't they can find clang in the add software GUI. > Anyway I'm talking about Windows. > >> Such a big hoop.... >> >>> So I would not recommend the use of gcc or clang for Windows; there are >>> too many potential gotchas. Maybe for Linux IF it's pre-installed. >> >> Just check the appropriate box on the Cygwin installer GUI. Yet another >> big hoop. > > Actually, having to install Cygwin *IS* a bloody big hoop! Roughly the > size of the London Eye. No bigger hoop that developing software on Windows! -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 23:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <yZamz.1131820$GD.1074203@fx33.am4> |
| In reply to | #91176 |
On 27/07/2016 21:16, Ian Collins wrote: > On 07/28/16 07:54 AM, BartC wrote: >> Actually, having to install Cygwin *IS* a bloody big hoop! Roughly the >> size of the London Eye. > > No bigger hoop that developing software on Windows! That comes later. But we're trying to get started and installing a small and informal compiler such as Pelles C or lccwin is easier to find and download, and everything is included. Certainly easier than first installing Cygwin, which might be 100MB, 1GB, or up 70GB depending on what you read (actually no one seems to know). And then that involves working within a Linux look-alike terminal. A rather steep learning curve if you want to play with C and happen to have Windows. (If someone did want to tinker with Linux but used Windows, I'd recommend instead something like VirtualBox, then you can do it properly. Keep the two OSes separate.) -- Bartc (Any one else having trouble with External September this evening? Hasn't managed to download, or post messages for the last three hours.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 07:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nnc87j$dkl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91181 |
On 27/07/16 23:55, BartC wrote: > On 27/07/2016 21:16, Ian Collins wrote: >> On 07/28/16 07:54 AM, BartC wrote: > >>> Actually, having to install Cygwin *IS* a bloody big hoop! Roughly the >>> size of the London Eye. >> >> No bigger hoop that developing software on Windows! > > That comes later. But we're trying to get started and installing a small > and informal compiler such as Pelles C or lccwin is easier to find and > download, and everything is included. > > Certainly easier than first installing Cygwin, which might be 100MB, > 1GB, or up 70GB depending on what you read (actually no one seems to > know). And then that involves working within a Linux look-alike > terminal. A rather steep learning curve if you want to play with C and > happen to have Windows. I think you've missed the point of Cygwin. Cygwin, as I understand it, was written by and for people who were forced to work on Windows and missed their Unix homeland, so they did their damnedest to bring it with them. If you're not already into Unix, Cygwin is a bit pointless. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 19:35 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <5799B5B3.9000307@hotmail.com> |
| In reply to | #91205 |
On 07/28/16 06:20 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 27/07/16 23:55, BartC wrote: >> On 27/07/2016 21:16, Ian Collins wrote: >>> On 07/28/16 07:54 AM, BartC wrote: >> >>>> Actually, having to install Cygwin *IS* a bloody big hoop! Roughly the >>>> size of the London Eye. >>> >>> No bigger hoop that developing software on Windows! >> >> That comes later. But we're trying to get started and installing a small >> and informal compiler such as Pelles C or lccwin is easier to find and >> download, and everything is included. >> >> Certainly easier than first installing Cygwin, which might be 100MB, >> 1GB, or up 70GB depending on what you read (actually no one seems to >> know). And then that involves working within a Linux look-alike >> terminal. A rather steep learning curve if you want to play with C and >> happen to have Windows. > > I think you've missed the point of Cygwin. Cygwin, as I understand it, > was written by and for people who were forced to work on Windows and > missed their Unix homeland, so they did their damnedest to bring it with > them. If you're not already into Unix, Cygwin is a bit pointless. Yes, Cygwin is the Unix man on Windows equivalent of the ex-pat in Saudi's still :) -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-31 14:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <579e0ee7.9035531@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #91211 |
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 07/28/16 06:20 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > > On 27/07/16 23:55, BartC wrote: > >> Certainly easier than first installing Cygwin, which might be 100MB, > >> 1GB, or up 70GB depending on what you read (actually no one seems to > >> know). And then that involves working within a Linux look-alike > >> terminal. A rather steep learning curve if you want to play with C and > >> happen to have Windows. > > > > I think you've missed the point of Cygwin. Cygwin, as I understand it, > > was written by and for people who were forced to work on Windows and > > missed their Unix homeland, so they did their damnedest to bring it with > > them. If you're not already into Unix, Cygwin is a bit pointless. Yes, it's definitely not a replacement for a proper implementation - it's a hack for neckbeards who aren't flexible enough to adapt to systems they consider icky and morally inferior. > Yes, Cygwin is the Unix man on Windows equivalent of the ex-pat in > Saudi's still :) And like oilfield ex-pats, nobody really likes it, not the family back home and certainly not the non-expert natives. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-28 19:35 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <dvtqu2Fakf4U7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #91205 |
On 07/28/16 06:20 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 27/07/16 23:55, BartC wrote: >> On 27/07/2016 21:16, Ian Collins wrote: >>> On 07/28/16 07:54 AM, BartC wrote: >> >>>> Actually, having to install Cygwin *IS* a bloody big hoop! Roughly the >>>> size of the London Eye. >>> >>> No bigger hoop that developing software on Windows! >> >> That comes later. But we're trying to get started and installing a small >> and informal compiler such as Pelles C or lccwin is easier to find and >> download, and everything is included. >> >> Certainly easier than first installing Cygwin, which might be 100MB, >> 1GB, or up 70GB depending on what you read (actually no one seems to >> know). And then that involves working within a Linux look-alike >> terminal. A rather steep learning curve if you want to play with C and >> happen to have Windows. > > I think you've missed the point of Cygwin. Cygwin, as I understand it, > was written by and for people who were forced to work on Windows and > missed their Unix homeland, so they did their damnedest to bring it with > them. If you're not already into Unix, Cygwin is a bit pointless. Yes, Cygwin is the Unix man on Windows equivalent of the ex-pat in Saudi's still :) -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | already5chosen@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 17:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <add98d01-a1f0-4576-b3b1-8b830e5d7026@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #91181 |
On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 1:55:35 AM UTC+3, Bart wrote: > On 27/07/2016 21:16, Ian Collins wrote: > > On 07/28/16 07:54 AM, BartC wrote: > > >> Actually, having to install Cygwin *IS* a bloody big hoop! Roughly the > >> size of the London Eye. > > > > No bigger hoop that developing software on Windows! > > That comes later. But we're trying to get started and installing a small > and informal compiler such as Pelles C or lccwin is easier to find and > download, and everything is included. > > Certainly easier than first installing Cygwin, which might be 100MB, > 1GB, or up 70GB depending on what you read (actually no one seems to > know). And then that involves working within a Linux look-alike > terminal. A rather steep learning curve if you want to play with C and > happen to have Windows. > Install msys2. msys2 download from a few months ago was 66 MB. Install size is much bigger, but certainly under 0.5 GB. Then update core packages. Strictly speaking it's not necessary, but can reduce the # of surprises. Updating pacman is probably a good idea too. Then type 'pacman --needed -S clang'. Download size is 164 MB. Install size is 689 MB. That's all. No I didn't try it myself, I always installed gcc before that, but in theory pacman should be smart enough to figure out all dependencies. So, it's not very complex, even for newbie. But I agree that the procedure is not described in sufficient details on llvm/clang web site. Of course, in corporate environment it will not work with close to 100% certainty due to firewalls and similar nonsense. But in corporate environment installing compiler should be a job of trained IT personal. > (If someone did want to tinker with Linux but used Windows, I'd > recommend instead something like VirtualBox, then you can do it > properly. Keep the two OSes separate.) > > -- > Bartc > > (Any one else having trouble with External September this evening? > Hasn't managed to download, or post messages for the last three hours.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | eva galois <eva.galois@yandex.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-09 21:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nodv79$q33$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92036 |
On 8/9/2016 8:00 PM, already5chosen@yahoo.com wrote: > On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 1:55:35 AM UTC+3, Bart wrote: >> On 27/07/2016 21:16, Ian Collins wrote: >>> On 07/28/16 07:54 AM, BartC wrote: >> >>>> Actually, having to install Cygwin *IS* a bloody big hoop! Roughly the >>>> size of the London Eye. >>> >>> No bigger hoop that developing software on Windows! >> >> That comes later. But we're trying to get started and installing a small >> and informal compiler such as Pelles C or lccwin is easier to find and >> download, and everything is included. >> >> Certainly easier than first installing Cygwin, which might be 100MB, >> 1GB, or up 70GB depending on what you read (actually no one seems to >> know). And then that involves working within a Linux look-alike >> terminal. A rather steep learning curve if you want to play with C and >> happen to have Windows. >> > > Install msys2. > msys2 download from a few months ago was 66 MB. Install size is much bigger, but certainly under 0.5 GB. > Then update core packages. Strictly speaking it's not necessary, but can reduce the # of surprises. Updating pacman is probably a good idea too. > > Then type 'pacman --needed -S clang'. Download size is 164 MB. Install size is 689 MB. > That's all. > > No I didn't try it myself, I always installed gcc before that, but in theory pacman should be smart enough to figure out all dependencies. > > So, it's not very complex, even for newbie. > But I agree that the procedure is not described in sufficient details on llvm/clang web site. > > Of course, in corporate environment it will not work with close to 100% certainty due to firewalls and similar nonsense. But in corporate environment installing compiler should be a job of trained IT personal. > >> (If someone did want to tinker with Linux but used Windows, I'd >> recommend instead something like VirtualBox, then you can do it >> properly. Keep the two OSes separate.) >> >> -- >> Bartc >> >> (Any one else having trouble with External September this evening? >> Hasn't managed to download, or post messages for the last three hours.) > what's wrong with mingw for windows development?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 10:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <noepcv$p4j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92041 |
On 10/08/16 03:15, eva galois wrote: > On 8/9/2016 8:00 PM, already5chosen@yahoo.com wrote: >> On Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 1:55:35 AM UTC+3, Bart wrote: >>> On 27/07/2016 21:16, Ian Collins wrote: >>>> On 07/28/16 07:54 AM, BartC wrote: >>> >>>>> Actually, having to install Cygwin *IS* a bloody big hoop! Roughly the >>>>> size of the London Eye. >>>> >>>> No bigger hoop that developing software on Windows! >>> >>> That comes later. But we're trying to get started and installing a small >>> and informal compiler such as Pelles C or lccwin is easier to find and >>> download, and everything is included. >>> >>> Certainly easier than first installing Cygwin, which might be 100MB, >>> 1GB, or up 70GB depending on what you read (actually no one seems to >>> know). And then that involves working within a Linux look-alike >>> terminal. A rather steep learning curve if you want to play with C and >>> happen to have Windows. >>> >> >> Install msys2. >> msys2 download from a few months ago was 66 MB. Install size is much bigger, but certainly under 0.5 GB. >> Then update core packages. Strictly speaking it's not necessary, but can reduce the # of surprises. Updating pacman is probably a good idea too. >> >> Then type 'pacman --needed -S clang'. Download size is 164 MB. Install size is 689 MB. >> That's all. >> >> No I didn't try it myself, I always installed gcc before that, but in theory pacman should be smart enough to figure out all dependencies. >> >> So, it's not very complex, even for newbie. >> But I agree that the procedure is not described in sufficient details on llvm/clang web site. >> >> Of course, in corporate environment it will not work with close to 100% certainty due to firewalls and similar nonsense. But in corporate environment installing compiler should be a job of trained IT personal. >> >>> (If someone did want to tinker with Linux but used Windows, I'd >>> recommend instead something like VirtualBox, then you can do it >>> properly. Keep the two OSes separate.) >>> >>> -- >>> Bartc >>> >>> (Any one else having trouble with External September this evening? >>> Hasn't managed to download, or post messages for the last three hours.) >> > what's wrong with mingw for windows development? > mingw is a port of gcc to Windows, along with minimal libraries and key utilities (assembler, linker, etc.). The biggest problem with the original mingw is that it uses MS' C standard library, which is (AFAIUI) missing a good deal of C99 and has a few weird ideas, as well as being quite slow. The newer mingw-w64 project uses a modern C library and thus provides much better C support (as well as supporting 32-bit and 64-bit compilation). msys2 is a port of a range of *nix type software to Windows. It gives you "make", "grep", "less", "bash", "touch", "cat", "sed", and all the other little bits and pieces that make *nix so nice for development work, and Windows so limited. It also gives you many of the big bits and pieces too (like Python and Perl). And of course it has a C compiler - mingw-w64 gcc.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 12:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <57ab2162.7060000@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #92041 |
eva galois <eva.galois@yandex.ru> wrote: > On 8/9/2016 8:00 PM, already5chosen@yahoo.com wrote: > > Install msys2. > > msys2 download from a few months ago was 66 MB. Install size is much bigger, but certainly under 0.5 GB. > > Then update core packages. Strictly speaking it's not necessary, but can reduce the # of surprises. Updating pacman is probably a good idea too. > > > > Then type 'pacman --needed -S clang'. Download size is 164 MB. Install size is 689 MB. > > That's all. > > > > No I didn't try it myself, I always installed gcc before that, but in theory pacman should be smart enough to figure out all dependencies. All this, when a decent development environment (again, Pelles C and Code::Blocks work fine, or if you like it small, Dev-C++) does it all in _one_ go? > what's wrong with mingw for windows development? Nothing much. And it doesn't require your end users to install the same monstrous GNU/Linux emulation support package that you have - the result runs natively on Windows. That's the important point, I think: the proponents of Linux-like installation and configuration tools keep forgetting the end user. For the programmer, the above procedure is all very well. I'd be peeved at being made to do it, but I'd manage. My users? Not a freaking chance. Never forget that the average end user is an idiot who doesn't know how to install three compile-from-source packages just to run your program, doesn't see why he should bother to learn when the competition lets him install his program with a single, convenient installer, and crucially, _is correct in this_. We don't expect the average overworked mother-of-five to fillet her own fish, either. _I_ do, and Jools Oliver presumably does or gets her hubby to do so, but most housewives and -husbands should be allowed to get a bag of pre-filleted fish for the freezer. Ditto with programs: most people shouldn't _have_ to be experts, and if _our_ install procedure leaks over into their world (which, IME, it too often does with GNU tools), that's us doing them a disservice. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | already5chosen@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 06:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <007d9a81-9e24-449c-8dde-4db3370b2c0c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92059 |
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 3:52:35 PM UTC+3, Richard Bos wrote: > eva galois <eva.galois@yandex.ru> wrote: > > > On 8/9/2016 8:00 PM, already5chosen@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > Install msys2. > > > msys2 download from a few months ago was 66 MB. Install size is much bigger, but certainly under 0.5 GB. > > > Then update core packages. Strictly speaking it's not necessary, but can reduce the # of surprises. Updating pacman is probably a good idea too. > > > > > > Then type 'pacman --needed -S clang'. Download size is 164 MB. Install size is 689 MB. > > > That's all. > > > > > > No I didn't try it myself, I always installed gcc before that, but in theory pacman should be smart enough to figure out all dependencies. > > All this, when a decent development environment (again, Pelles C and > Code::Blocks work fine, or if you like it small, Dev-C++) does it all in > _one_ go? > > > what's wrong with mingw for windows development? > > Nothing much. And it doesn't require your end users to install the same > monstrous GNU/Linux emulation support package that you have - the result > runs natively on Windows. > > That's the important point, I think: the proponents of Linux-like > installation and configuration tools keep forgetting the end user. For > the programmer, the above procedure is all very well. I'd be peeved at > being made to do it, but I'd manage. My users? Not a freaking chance. > Never forget that the average end user is an idiot who doesn't know how > to install three compile-from-source packages just to run your program, > doesn't see why he should bother to learn when the competition lets him > install his program with a single, convenient installer, and crucially, > _is correct in this_. > We don't expect the average overworked mother-of-five to fillet her own > fish, either. _I_ do, and Jools Oliver presumably does or gets her hubby > to do so, but most housewives and -husbands should be allowed to get a > bag of pre-filleted fish for the freezer. Ditto with programs: most > people shouldn't _have_ to be experts, and if _our_ install procedure > leaks over into their world (which, IME, it too often does with GNU > tools), that's us doing them a disservice. > > Richard Nice rant and I agree with just about everything you said. But what it has to do with msys2? For most intents and purposes msys2 is just a newer, better platform for mingw. 64-bit support, pacman, etc... It builds executives that run natively just fine. May be, you'll need additional DLL for parts of C++ RTL, but for plain C it just works. And even for worst C++ cases it's not a big deal - you always can distribute support DLL together with your exe. As far as I remember DLL is relatively small. Your overworked mother-of-five will not pay attention that he got fillets in two pieces instead of one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 16:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <noff3k$85o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92059 |
On 10/08/16 14:52, Richard Bos wrote: > eva galois <eva.galois@yandex.ru> wrote: > >> On 8/9/2016 8:00 PM, already5chosen@yahoo.com wrote: > >>> Install msys2. >>> msys2 download from a few months ago was 66 MB. Install size is much bigger, but certainly under 0.5 GB. >>> Then update core packages. Strictly speaking it's not necessary, but can reduce the # of surprises. Updating pacman is probably a good idea too. >>> >>> Then type 'pacman --needed -S clang'. Download size is 164 MB. Install size is 689 MB. >>> That's all. >>> >>> No I didn't try it myself, I always installed gcc before that, but in theory pacman should be smart enough to figure out all dependencies. > > All this, when a decent development environment (again, Pelles C and > Code::Blocks work fine, or if you like it small, Dev-C++) does it all in > _one_ go? > >> what's wrong with mingw for windows development? > > Nothing much. And it doesn't require your end users to install the same > monstrous GNU/Linux emulation support package that you have - the result > runs natively on Windows. > > That's the important point, I think: the proponents of Linux-like > installation and configuration tools keep forgetting the end user. For > the programmer, the above procedure is all very well. I'd be peeved at > being made to do it, but I'd manage. My users? Not a freaking chance. > Never forget that the average end user is an idiot who doesn't know how > to install three compile-from-source packages just to run your program, > doesn't see why he should bother to learn when the competition lets him > install his program with a single, convenient installer, and crucially, > _is correct in this_. > We don't expect the average overworked mother-of-five to fillet her own > fish, either. _I_ do, and Jools Oliver presumably does or gets her hubby > to do so, but most housewives and -husbands should be allowed to get a > bag of pre-filleted fish for the freezer. Ditto with programs: most > people shouldn't _have_ to be experts, and if _our_ install procedure > leaks over into their world (which, IME, it too often does with GNU > tools), that's us doing them a disservice. > > Richard > You do realise that there is no need to install msys2 in order to run programs compiled with mingw-w64, even though it is convenient for the developer? A C programmer is going to like msys2 if he/she wants fancier makefiles or other build systems. My makefiles are more efficient than anything I have seen with IDEs, and they are more flexible (I sometimes need extra pre-processing or post-processing work). But if an IDE's project management is good enough, then that's fine. But whether you use msys2's utilities or a an IDE such as Code::Blocks, the final program is the same - and it needs no more or less in order to run on the end user's system. (Note that this is different from Cygwin, where a number of DLL's and possibly a posix-style file tree are needed on the target system.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 11:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <noev9h$gg9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92036 |
On 10/08/2016 01:00, already5chosen@yahoo.com wrote: > Install msys2. You don't need msys or msys2 or cygwin to run Clang on Windows. Clang just has a dependency on gcc which they don't bother to tell you about. > Then type 'pacman --needed -S clang'. Download size is 164 MB. Install size is 689 MB. I've no idea what pacman is (apart from the game) or why it would be needed. (This is the problem with giving an inch to these Linux/Unix/Shimux programs, they end up taking a mile (and taking over your machine and your life). We're talking about a program that takes .c source files and produces object files.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 11:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <noevqs$ieo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92052 |
On 10/08/16 11:22, BartC wrote: > On 10/08/2016 01:00, already5chosen@yahoo.com wrote: > >> Install msys2. > > You don't need msys or msys2 or cygwin to run Clang on Windows. Clang > just has a dependency on gcc which they don't bother to tell you about. > >> Then type 'pacman --needed -S clang'. Download size is 164 MB. Install >> size is 689 MB. > > I've no idea what pacman is (apart from the game) or why it would be > needed. Neither did I, but it took me less than 30 seconds to find out. > (This is the problem with giving an inch to these Linux/Unix/Shimux > programs, they end up taking a mile (and taking over your machine and > your life). If you spent half as much time learning about them as you spend whining about them, you'd be an expert by now. > We're talking about a program that takes .c source files and produces > object files.) Sure. And, like many programs, that program will need to be placed onto your system in such a way that it will work. If you want to use the program, you put up with the way it's installed. If you dislike the installation process enough that you'd rather not use the program, that's fine too. Most people manage to make this decision quite quietly. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 14:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nof8kg$hp2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92054 |
On 10/08/2016 11:31, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 10/08/16 11:22, BartC wrote: >> On 10/08/2016 01:00, already5chosen@yahoo.com wrote: >> >>> Install msys2. >> >> You don't need msys or msys2 or cygwin to run Clang on Windows. Clang >> just has a dependency on gcc which they don't bother to tell you about. >> >>> Then type 'pacman --needed -S clang'. Download size is 164 MB. Install >>> size is 689 MB. >> >> I've no idea what pacman is (apart from the game) or why it would be >> needed. > > Neither did I, but it took me less than 30 seconds to find out. I spent rather more than 30 seconds (searching for 'pacman clang') and found references to it but no explanation. But doing it again, 'pacman' might be an abbreviation for 'package manager'. Perhaps something that does what apt-get does. Whatever it is, it's getting further and further away from the issue. Anything to do with Linux stuff on Windows (within Linux itself even) always seems to end up the same way: you want to use A, but you need B, and that needs C, and then it is suggested you just acquire the entire alphabet. It reminds me of nothing so much as the tootsie frootsie sketch in the Marx Brothers' 'A Day at the Races'. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web