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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #126371 > unrolled thread

Good C compiler for WIN64

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

Contents

  Good C compiler for WIN64 shinobi@f153.n1.z21.fsxnet (shinobi) - 2018-02-07 11:14 +1200
    Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-02-07 14:04 +0100
      Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-02-07 09:52 -0800
        Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-07 18:24 +0000
      Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 shinobi@f153.n1.z21.fsxnet (shinobi) - 2018-02-07 16:10 +1200
      Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-07 13:48 +0000
        Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-02-08 01:41 -0600
      Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2018-02-08 01:44 -0600
    Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-02-07 21:18 +0100
      Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 shinobi@f153.n1.z21.fsxnet (shinobi) - 2018-02-08 08:22 +1200
        Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-08 10:40 +0000
    Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-02-08 00:06 +0800
      Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 shinobi@f153.n1.z21.fsxnet (shinobi) - 2018-02-08 08:21 +1200
        Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-08 10:36 +0000
          Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-02-08 03:49 -0800
    Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Robbie Hatley <loneSNIPwolf@wellCUT.com> - 2018-02-08 03:22 -0800
      Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-02-08 04:05 -0800
      Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-08 12:32 +0000
        Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-08 12:40 +0000
        Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-02-08 14:36 +0100
          Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Robbie Hatley <loneSNIPwolf@wellCUT.com> - 2018-02-08 09:47 -0800
            Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 already5chosen@yahoo.com - 2018-02-08 10:33 -0800
            Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-02-09 10:33 +0100
              Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-09 10:48 +0000
                Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-09 11:18 +0000
                Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-02-09 15:24 +0100
                  Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-10 12:56 +0000
                    Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-02-10 15:44 +0000
                      Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-10 16:13 +0000
                        Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-02-10 17:36 +0000
                          Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-10 18:15 +0000
                            Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-02-10 18:27 +0000
                              Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-10 18:42 +0000
                                Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-02-10 20:03 +0000
                                  Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-10 20:23 +0000
                                    Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-02-10 20:58 +0000
                                      Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-10 21:13 +0000
                                        Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-02-10 21:40 +0000
                                          Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-10 22:22 +0000
                                            Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-02-10 23:39 +0000
                                              Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-11 01:07 +0000
                                                Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-02-11 01:23 +0000
                                                  Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-11 01:38 +0000
                                                    Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-02-11 01:42 +0000
                                                      Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-11 10:58 +0000
                                                        Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-02-11 03:17 -0800
                                                          Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-11 11:33 +0000
                                                        Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-02-11 14:21 +0000
                                                          Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-11 15:05 +0000
                                                            Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-02-11 17:08 +0000
                                    Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-12 22:32 +0000
                          Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-10 18:26 +0000
                            Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-02-10 20:02 +0000
                  Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-02-10 14:45 +0000
                    Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2018-02-10 16:42 +0100
                      Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-02-11 08:16 +0000
                        Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2018-02-11 13:48 +0100
                          Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-02-11 15:42 +0000
                            Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2018-02-11 18:44 +0100
                              Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2018-02-12 15:39 +0000
                      Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-02-11 16:26 +0100
                Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2018-02-10 09:50 +1300
        Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2018-02-08 12:21 -0800
          Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-02-08 22:52 +0000
            Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2018-02-09 10:01 -0800
    Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2018-02-08 20:16 +0100
      Re: Good C compiler for WIN64 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-02-08 19:58 +0000

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

#126371 — Good C compiler for WIN64

Hello All,

I'm looking for good C compiler for WIN64.

So far I don't want to go with the MSVC 
and if there is other way I'd really appreciate
it.

My ideal target is something that would fit to a floppy.
Generally something in the size of several Megabytes.

And possibly even easy or no installation at all.

Does anything like that even exists?

Thank You for any reply

Shinobi

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#126377

On 07/02/18 00:14, shinobi wrote:
> Hello All,
> 
> I'm looking for good C compiler for WIN64.

I'd suggest mingw64 <https://mingw-w64.org/>.  It is gcc for Windows.

Don't use the original pre-fork mingw - it uses MS VC's C library, which
is badly outdated and has very limited C99 support.  You can also get it
as part of the Msys2 project with all sorts of other useful programs to
make Windows better for development (especially if you are a *nix or
command line kind of person).  <http://www.msys2.org/>

And there are packages for cross-compilation from Linux to Win32/Win64
if you want to go that route.

> 
> So far I don't want to go with the MSVC 
> and if there is other way I'd really appreciate
> it.

MSVC has traditionally been a very good C++ compiler, but with weak
support for pure C programming.

> 
> My ideal target is something that would fit to a floppy.

I recommend consulting a calendar.  It is several computer generations
since I have had a PC with a floppy drive, and even my floppy disk
coffee cup mat fell apart many years ago.

> Generally something in the size of several Megabytes.

Floppies never held "several megabytes" - 2.88 was the largest size.
Unless you are talking about ZIP drives or something like that?

There are some people here who like to judge compiler quality on the
size of the package, and they can recommend smaller toolchains.  If you
have particular reason for needing something small, then gcc is not the
compiler to use.  But then, if you needed something small and efficient
you would not be using Windows.

> 
> And possibly even easy or no installation at all.

Msys2 and Mingw64 are simple to install.

> 
> Does anything like that even exists?
> 
> Thank You for any reply
> 
> Shinobi
> 

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

#126383

bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 07/02/2018 13:04, David Brown wrote:
[...]
>> Msys2 and Mingw64 are simple to install.
>
> No they are not. First you have /find/ an installation; the first hit 
> for 'mingw download' is one of the most complex download sites I've 
> seen. If you search for 'mingw64' instead, you get something promisingly 
> called 'MingGW-w64 - for 32 and 64 bit Windows'. Then you see the 
> sub-text 'A complete runtime environment for gcc'. So it's not gcc.
[...]

The first hit for "mingw download" is a link to sourceforge.net.

The third is www.mingw.org, and I can't think of any good reason not to
download it from there.  Go to the "Downloads" page, then download and
run the installer.  (I just did.)

Since Windows generally lacks Linux-style package management (as far as
I know), if you want to install a package it's almost always best to get
it from the project's own web site.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

#126409

On 07/02/2018 17:52, Keith Thompson wrote:
> bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> On 07/02/2018 13:04, David Brown wrote:
> [...]
>>> Msys2 and Mingw64 are simple to install.
>>
>> No they are not. First you have /find/ an installation; the first hit
>> for 'mingw download' is one of the most complex download sites I've
>> seen. If you search for 'mingw64' instead, you get something promisingly
>> called 'MingGW-w64 - for 32 and 64 bit Windows'. Then you see the
>> sub-text 'A complete runtime environment for gcc'. So it's not gcc.
> [...]
> 
> The first hit for "mingw download" is a link to sourceforge.net.
> 
> The third is www.mingw.org, and I can't think of any good reason not to
> download it from there.  Go to the "Downloads" page, then download and
> run the installer.  (I just did.)
> 
> Since Windows generally lacks Linux-style package management (as far as
> I know), if you want to install a package it's almost always best to get
> it from the project's own web site.
> 

The process has been improved since I tried to do it five or more years 
ago, when an actual compiler download was elusive (you ended up 
downloading libraries or whatever). I think they expected others to take 
sources and create their own binary distributions.

But even starting with mingw-w64.org (first hit of 'mingw64 home page'), 
you click Downloads. Then select MingW-W64 builds, which takes you to a 
page containing just:

   Mingw-builds
   Installation: Sourceforge

Of which Sourceforge is clickable. So you click it, and get to something 
called MinGW-w64 for 32 and 64 bit Windows. But the sub-text, as I 
pointed out before, is 'A complete runtime environment for gcc'. So, is 
it gcc, or is it just the environment?

You don't know until you've downloaded it. Apparently it does include 
gcc this time as the bin directory has gcc.exe.

Plus 49 other .exe files. 80 .exe and 50 .dll files across directories, 
and 14,000 other files. Perfect for a beginner.

-- 
bartc

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

#126390

 DB> I'd suggest mingw64 <https://mingw-w64.org/>.  It is gcc for Windows.

I guess I found what I've been looking for.
In my case it's Tiny C Compiler.
https://bellard.org/tcc/

I'm not sure it will do ncurses but should
be sufficient to compile small binary.

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

#126404

On 07/02/2018 13:04, David Brown wrote:
> On 07/02/18 00:14, shinobi wrote:

>> Generally something in the size of several Megabytes.
> 
> Floppies never held "several megabytes" - 2.88 was the largest size.
> Unless you are talking about ZIP drives or something like that?

1.44MB was the largest size in general use. If used for distribution, 
then compression allows it to carry up to 3MB of programs. But to run 
from floppy, 1.44MB is the limit. The smaller compilers below might fit 
if you exclude their include and library files.

> There are some people here who like to judge compiler quality on the
> size of the package, and they can recommend smaller toolchains.  If you
> have particular reason for needing something small, then gcc is not the
> compiler to use.  But then, if you needed something small and efficient
> you would not be using Windows.
> 
>>
>> And possibly even easy or no installation at all.
> 
> Msys2 and Mingw64 are simple to install.

No they are not. First you have /find/ an installation; the first hit 
for 'mingw download' is one of the most complex download sites I've 
seen. If you search for 'mingw64' instead, you get something promisingly 
called 'MingGW-w64 - for 32 and 64 bit Windows'. Then you see the 
sub-text 'A complete runtime environment for gcc'. So it's not gcc.

I usually end up downloading 'gcc tdm' (search for 'gcc tdm download') 
which offers a complete bundle, not just one component.

And even my gcc tdm installation comprises 5500 files in 600MB - a tight 
fit for a floppy. So even if 'simple' to install, it is not simple in 
itself.

To OP: search also for 'pelles c download', 'lccwin download' and 'Tiny 
C download'.

(There is also my own C compiler, which is 0.32MB so would fit on a 
360KB floppy, but is incomplete at the minute and lacks a built-in means 
of creating an executable (ie. it needs a linker). I'll see if I can get 
it more self-contained later in the year.)

-- 
bartc

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

#126418

On Wed, 7 Feb 2018 13:48:23 +0000, bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

>On 07/02/2018 13:04, David Brown wrote:
>> On 07/02/18 00:14, shinobi wrote:
>
>>> Generally something in the size of several Megabytes.
>> 
>> Floppies never held "several megabytes" - 2.88 was the largest size.
>> Unless you are talking about ZIP drives or something like that?
>
>1.44MB was the largest size in general use. If used for distribution, 
>then compression allows it to carry up to 3MB of programs. But to run 
>from floppy, 1.44MB is the limit. The smaller compilers below might fit 
>if you exclude their include and library files.


MS, followed by a number of other vendors, created a 1680kb 3.5 inch
physical floppy format by increasing the number of sectors per track
to 21 (from 18 on standard formats).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_Media_Format

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

#126419

On Wed, 07 Feb 2018 14:04:23 +0100, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

>There are some people here who like to judge compiler quality on the
>size of the package, and they can recommend smaller toolchains.  If you
>have particular reason for needing something small, then gcc is not the
>compiler to use.  But then, if you needed something small and efficient
>you would not be using Windows.


Back in the 90s, in the days when hardcopy documentation was common,
one magazine started including the weight of the distribution package
in their reviews of compilers.

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

#126393

On 07/02/2018 00:14, shinobi wrote:

> I'm looking for good C compiler for WIN64.
> 
> So far I don't want to go with the MSVC and if there is other way I'd
> really appreciate it.
> 
> My ideal target is something that would fit to a floppy. Generally
> something in the size of several Megabytes.

What's a floppy?

Maybe try TCC?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny_C_Compiler

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

#126425

 No> What's a floppy?
 No> 
 No> Maybe try TCC?

That's what I tried. However there is a catch. The program uses NCURSES
and for some reasons there isn't any implementation of NCURSES in tcc.
All I wanted is to compile a single file to get ANSI viewer. 

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

#126427

On 07/02/2018 20:22, shinobi wrote:
>   No> What's a floppy?
>   No>
>   No> Maybe try TCC?
> 
> That's what I tried. However there is a catch. The program uses NCURSES
> and for some reasons there isn't any implementation of NCURSES in tcc.
> All I wanted is to compile a single file to get ANSI viewer.

NCURSES is a separate library, not usually provided with a compiler (I 
can't see it in my gcc or or MSVC's include files.)

Search for 'ncurses for Windows'.

You need a header file, and some sort of library for it in binary format 
compatible with your compiler.

What's the program you're trying to compile?

-- 
bartc

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

#126416

On 7/2/2018 07:14, shinobi wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> I'm looking for good C compiler for WIN64.
>
> So far I don't want to go with the MSVC
> and if there is other way I'd really appreciate
> it.
>
> My ideal target is something that would fit to a floppy.
> Generally something in the size of several Megabytes.
>
> And possibly even easy or no installation at all.

Visual Studio Community Edition? ;)

-- 
   @~@   Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
  / v \  Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
   ^ ^   (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10)  Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

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

#126424

 MM> Visual Studio Community Edition? ;)

That's a wonderful idea. However my hard-drive is 32GB large. And 24GB takes
Windows. Other is just temp files. So far I'm now out of possibility to even
upgrade Windows 10. Just because it won't fit on my hard-drive.

I'm afraid MSVSCE is out of my reach.

Thanks anyway

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

#126426

On 07/02/2018 20:21, shinobi wrote:
>   MM> Visual Studio Community Edition? ;)
> 
> That's a wonderful idea. However my hard-drive is 32GB large. And 24GB takes
> Windows. Other is just temp files. So far I'm now out of possibility to even
> upgrade Windows 10. Just because it won't fit on my hard-drive.
> 
> I'm afraid MSVSCE is out of my reach.

My laptop is also 32GB with limited space for monster compilers.

How it still has gcc, lccwin, pelles c, two Tiny Cs, and DMC. Even gcc 
is only some 0.5GB, 'small' in that context.

I think even MSVC - which is the C/C++ compiler of Visual Studio but 
without the 6-10GB of Visual Studio - might only amount to a few hundred 
MB. The tricky bit is finding a distribution just for that.

-- 
bartc

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

#126430

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 12:36:05 PM UTC+2, Bart wrote:
> On 07/02/2018 20:21, shinobi wrote:
> >   MM> Visual Studio Community Edition? ;)
> > 
> > That's a wonderful idea. However my hard-drive is 32GB large. And 24GB takes
> > Windows. Other is just temp files. So far I'm now out of possibility to even
> > upgrade Windows 10. Just because it won't fit on my hard-drive.
> > 
> > I'm afraid MSVSCE is out of my reach.
> 
> My laptop is also 32GB with limited space for monster compilers.
> 
> How it still has gcc, lccwin, pelles c, two Tiny Cs, and DMC. Even gcc 
> is only some 0.5GB, 'small' in that context.
> 
> I think even MSVC - which is the C/C++ compiler of Visual Studio but 
> without the 6-10GB of Visual Studio - might only amount to a few hundred 
> MB. The tricky bit is finding a distribution just for that.
> 
> -- 
> bartc

We already discussed it a year ago. 
A summary:
You can't download and install "Visual C++ Build Tools" without 3+ GB of the free space on the hard disk. The size of the downloaded image is significantly smaller, according to may estimate 0.3 to 0.4 GB, but an installer is constructed in such way that you can't see it and can't save it for later use.

After you successfully installed it, it occupies 2.7 GB.
After that you can delete ~1.5 GB of irrelevant stuff in "Windows Kits" directory.
But it still leaves you with 1.2 GB.

This stuff is very seriously bloated.

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

#126429

On 2/6/2018 3:14 PM, shinobi wrote:

> Hello All,
> 
> I'm looking for good C compiler for WIN64.

Install Cygwin64. It comes with GCC and a vast assortment
of other compilers, interpreters, and tools. It also gives
you BASH as your command interpreter (instead of DOS),
and a linux-like file-access syntax:
D:\MyDir\MyFile.abc -> /cygdrive/d/MyDir/MyFile.abc
I do all my programming for system maintenance these days
in Perl on Cygwin on Windows 10. And I also use C and C++
on this platform. I also have Ada, Lua, Ruby, and Fortran
installed, because I can. (I don't actually speak those
languages, but if I get bored, I may learn.)

And someone, elsewhere in this thread, mentioned ncurses.
Well, Cygwin has ncurses available also. I was just playing
with that yesterday, but having trouble, because I know
little about ncurses, and the documentation is terse and
cryptic, so I find it slow learning. But it does present
some fascinating options for control of input & output.


-- 
Cheers,
Robbie Hatley
Midway City, CA, USA
perl -E 'say "\154o\156e\167o\154f\100w\145ll\56c\157m";'
http://www.well.com/user/lonewolf/
https://www.facebook.com/robbie.hatley

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

#126431

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 1:23:19 PM UTC+2, Robbie Hatley wrote:
> On 2/6/2018 3:14 PM, shinobi wrote:
> 
> > Hello All,
> > 
> > I'm looking for good C compiler for WIN64.
> 
> Install Cygwin64. It comes with GCC and a vast assortment
> of other compilers, interpreters, and tools. It also gives
> you BASH as your command interpreter (instead of DOS),
> and a linux-like file-access syntax:
> D:\MyDir\MyFile.abc -> /cygdrive/d/MyDir/MyFile.abc
> I do all my programming for system maintenance these days
> in Perl on Cygwin on Windows 10. And I also use C and C++
> on this platform. I also have Ada, Lua, Ruby, and Fortran
> installed, because I can. (I don't actually speak those
> languages, but if I get bored, I may learn.)
> 
> And someone, elsewhere in this thread, mentioned ncurses.
> Well, Cygwin has ncurses available also. I was just playing
> with that yesterday, but having trouble, because I know
> little about ncurses, and the documentation is terse and
> cryptic, so I find it slow learning. But it does present
> some fascinating options for control of input & output.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Robbie Hatley
> Midway City, CA, USA
> perl -E 'say "\154o\156e\167o\154f\100w\145ll\56c\157m";'
> http://www.well.com/user/lonewolf/
> https://www.facebook.com/robbie.hatley

If the purpose is a self-contained executive then MSYS2 is a far better suggestion than cygwin. Even if under the hood the two are pretty similar.
And yes, ncurses can be installed on msys2.
Not that I understand why anybody would want to develop a *new* character cell gui app in year 2018.

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

#126434

On 08/02/2018 11:22, Robbie Hatley wrote:
> 
> On 2/6/2018 3:14 PM, shinobi wrote:
> 
>> Hello All,
>>
>> I'm looking for good C compiler for WIN64.
> 
> Install Cygwin64. It comes with GCC and a vast assortment
> of other compilers, interpreters, and tools. It also gives
> you BASH as your command interpreter (instead of DOS),
> and a linux-like file-access syntax:
> D:\MyDir\MyFile.abc -> /cygdrive/d/MyDir/MyFile.abc
> I do all my programming for system maintenance these days
> in Perl on Cygwin on Windows 10. And I also use C and C++
> on this platform. I also have Ada, Lua, Ruby, and Fortran
> installed, because I can. (I don't actually speak those
> languages, but if I get bored, I may learn.)
> 
> And someone, elsewhere in this thread, mentioned ncurses.
> Well, Cygwin has ncurses available also. I was just playing
> with that yesterday, but having trouble, because I know
> little about ncurses, and the documentation is terse and
> cryptic, so I find it slow learning. But it does present
> some fascinating options for control of input & output.


If the primary reason for Cygwin is to gain access to ncurses (since 
there are perfectly good compilers for Windows that don't need Cygwin) 
then it's the start of a slippery slope.

I tried ncurses a few years ago (I think the Windows version was called 
pdcurses), and I abandoned it as being overkill for what I wanted to do. 
It also introduced some complications.

I can't remember what was involved but the fact that it is now elusive 
to track down the header files and libraries needed (I looked at 
something just now that involved building from source), means I would 
keep away from it.

What is the task that actually needs to be achieved? In my case it was 
random positioning within a console, and being able to use colour text. 
Something that every home computer of the 1980s could do with no fuss.

So why is it suddenly such a big deal? Is Windows really so incapable 
that it needs to import most of Linux for this simple task?

In the end I ended up used WinAPI function calls; not that simple, but 
once done it's done. And with more control over the the console than you 
get with NCURSES, which wants to take it over and forces you to use some 
crappy windowing system that you don't need and don't want.

However, here's an example of cursor positioning: once the WinAPI stuff 
is out of the way, you call initconsole() once, then setpos(column, row) 
for each new position. (column, row are zero-based here but that is 
easily changed.)

The example fills the console with "." characters except for a border of 
'X'. The bottom row is not included to prevent scrolling.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#include <stdio.h>
#include <windows.h>

HANDLE hconsole;
int screencols,screenrows;

void initconsole(void) {
   CONSOLE_SCREEN_BUFFER_INFO info;

   hconsole=GetStdHandle(STD_OUTPUT_HANDLE);

   GetConsoleScreenBufferInfo(hconsole, &info);

   screencols=info.dwSize.X;
   screenrows=info.dwSize.Y;
}

void setpos(int col, int row) {
   COORD pos = {col, row};
   SetConsoleCursorPosition(hconsole, pos);
}

int main(void) {
   int i,x,y;

   initconsole();

   for (y=0; y<screenrows-1; ++y) {
	for (x=0; x<screencols; ++x) {
		setpos(x,y);
		if (x==0 || y==0 || x==screencols-1 || y==screenrows-2)
			printf("X");
		else
			printf("-");
	}
   }

   getch();
}

-- 
bartc

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

#126435

On 08/02/2018 12:32, bartc wrote:

> int main(void) {
>    int i,x,y;
> 
>    initconsole();
> 
>    for (y=0; y<screenrows-1; ++y) {
>      for (x=0; x<screencols; ++x) {
>          setpos(x,y);
>          if (x==0 || y==0 || x==screencols-1 || y==screenrows-2)
>              printf("X");
>          else
>              printf("-");
>      }
>    }

This is probably not the best demo since it fills the screen left to 
right, top to bottom so is not exactly random access; more like regular 
screen output!

Try reversing the two for-loop header lines to make it slightly more 
impressive by filling the screen left to right.

(Note this works only on Windows.)

-- 
bartc

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

#126436

On 08/02/18 13:32, bartc wrote:
> On 08/02/2018 11:22, Robbie Hatley wrote:
>>
>> On 2/6/2018 3:14 PM, shinobi wrote:
>>
>>> Hello All,
>>>
>>> I'm looking for good C compiler for WIN64.
>>
>> Install Cygwin64. It comes with GCC and a vast assortment
>> of other compilers, interpreters, and tools. It also gives
>> you BASH as your command interpreter (instead of DOS),
>> and a linux-like file-access syntax:
>> D:\MyDir\MyFile.abc -> /cygdrive/d/MyDir/MyFile.abc
>> I do all my programming for system maintenance these days
>> in Perl on Cygwin on Windows 10. And I also use C and C++
>> on this platform. I also have Ada, Lua, Ruby, and Fortran
>> installed, because I can. (I don't actually speak those
>> languages, but if I get bored, I may learn.)
>>
>> And someone, elsewhere in this thread, mentioned ncurses.
>> Well, Cygwin has ncurses available also. I was just playing
>> with that yesterday, but having trouble, because I know
>> little about ncurses, and the documentation is terse and
>> cryptic, so I find it slow learning. But it does present
>> some fascinating options for control of input & output.
> 
> 
> If the primary reason for Cygwin is to gain access to ncurses (since
> there are perfectly good compilers for Windows that don't need Cygwin)
> then it's the start of a slippery slope.

Indeed.  Cygwin is the way to go if you need the best Posix
compatibility you can get on Windows (such as the "fork" system call, or
filesystem symbolic links, or *nix style device driver files).  But you
rarely need that, and it adds a great deal of complications and
inefficiencies in order to achieve this.  Mingw (including tdm) has less
complete Posix emulation, but is far simpler and easier to work with,
and Msys2 gives you most of the utilities you might need without having
to go for Cygwin.

> 
> I tried ncurses a few years ago (I think the Windows version was called
> pdcurses), and I abandoned it as being overkill for what I wanted to do.
> It also introduced some complications.
> 
> I can't remember what was involved but the fact that it is now elusive
> to track down the header files and libraries needed (I looked at
> something just now that involved building from source), means I would
> keep away from it.
> 
> What is the task that actually needs to be achieved?

That is the question I would ask.  First, there are perhaps two reasons
for choosing to use curses.  One is that you want to use it as a base
for building a good TUI library.  The other is that you are a masochist.
 Secondly, there are perhaps two reasons for choosing C as the language
for this sort of thing.  One is that you want maximum efficiency, which
is usually pointless when user interaction is involved.  The other is
that you are a masochist.

Okay, that was perhaps a touch cynical and exaggerated.  But it is
always worth thinking about the task at hand before fixing on a solution.

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

Page 1 of 4  [1] 2 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web