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 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
| From | already5chosen@yahoo.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 07:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c3fe9143-8c38-4c48-8d0c-5e8973fa0b15@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92062 |
On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 4:02:17 PM UTC+3, Bart wrote: > 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. > It's good that you want to know what is pacman, but this knowledge is not necessary for cutting "pacman --needed -S clang" from your browser's window into msys2 terminal window and hitting Enter. > Whatever it is, it's getting further and further away from the issue. > Exactly. And, to remind you, the issue is not "**ix style vs Windows style development on Windows platform", but "gcc vs clang". > 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. > Not in this particular case. It's perfectly possible to know very little about Linux and still be productive programmer with msys2/clang combo under Windows. All (s)he needs is to ask few "how" questions on StackOverflow or similar place and to avoid asking any "why" questions. > 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]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 17:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nofg2d$bjj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92062 |
On 10/08/16 15:01, BartC wrote: > 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. Here's a tip on googling. You want to know what "pacman" is, so you google "pacman". After realising that the first hits are all for the game, which is clearly not what you want, google for "pacman -game". Once you eliminate the game-related results, the relevant "pacman" is at the top - it is indeed an abbreviation for "package manager", and comes from the Arch Linux distribution. And it does indeed do a similar job to apt. > > 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. But usually you just say "give me A" (via apt, pacman, whatever), and Linux (or msys2, or cygwin, or FreeBSD, etc.) figures out that you need B and C, downloads appropriate packages, configures and installs them all, and you've got your "A" with a single command (or a single selection from a nice convenient graphical package manager). On Windows, you need to search for the right website that has "A". Then when you have found the download link, you need to pass through layers of new sites called "download.com" or "getyoursoftwarehere.com", wading through adverts and hoping that /this/ link is for the actual download, and not another link to another intermediary site. And you hope that there is no malware along the way. And then when you try to install "A", you have to choose the "advanced" install options in order to avoid yet another copy of advertising "toolbars" for your browser, or yet another "free" anti-virus tool, and similar nonsense. Then when you try to run it, despite it having vast numbers of DLL's (most of which you already have from other programs, in multiple copies), it turns out you are still missing some dotnet package. If you are lucky, you discover this by an informative error message - if you are unlucky, you just get a meaningless crash and have to google again to find out what it means. Installing the dotnet package is impossible until you have upgraded your install utility - and upgrading your install utility is impossible until you have upgraded your entire Windows OS, which will break other programs you need. Sometimes installing programs on Windows is fine. But sometimes it is truly hell - vastly more time-consuming and inconvenient than on Linux. The two OS's have different ways of doing certain things, and until you realise and accept that, and stop trying to think of Linux as a distorted Windows (or vice-versa), you are always going to have trouble. > > It reminds me of nothing so much as the tootsie frootsie sketch in the > Marx Brothers' 'A Day at the Races'. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 09:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnk2fotw5l.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #92071 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
[...]
> On Windows, you need to search for the right website that has "A". Then
> when you have found the download link, you need to pass through layers
> of new sites called "download.com" or "getyoursoftwarehere.com", wading
> through adverts and hoping that /this/ link is for the actual download,
> and not another link to another intermediary site. And you hope that
> there is no malware along the way.
[...]
I haven't installed anything on Windows in a while, but as I recall
if you want to install a software package, it's almost always best
to go directly to the project site and look for a Windows installer.
Third-party download sites are best avoided if at all possible.
--
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]
| From | Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 09:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <h9mmqbhevutmcigk1hvfgsle2p7ocnfj5q@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #92081 |
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 09:40:22 -0700, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: >David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >[...] >> On Windows, you need to search for the right website that has "A". Then >> when you have found the download link, you need to pass through layers >> of new sites called "download.com" or "getyoursoftwarehere.com", wading >> through adverts and hoping that /this/ link is for the actual download, >> and not another link to another intermediary site. And you hope that >> there is no malware along the way. >[...] > >I haven't installed anything on Windows in a while, but as I recall >if you want to install a software package, it's almost always best >to go directly to the project site and look for a Windows installer. >Third-party download sites are best avoided if at all possible. I wholeheartedly agree with these statements. First, going directly to the publisher's site gets the very latest version of the project and usually down-level versions if the latest is not what you want. Second, you get the project installation file without all the risks inherent with third-party sites that insist on plaguing us with "download managers" and spam.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 22:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nog44m$klq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92081 |
On 10/08/16 18:40, Keith Thompson wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > [...] >> On Windows, you need to search for the right website that has "A". Then >> when you have found the download link, you need to pass through layers >> of new sites called "download.com" or "getyoursoftwarehere.com", wading >> through adverts and hoping that /this/ link is for the actual download, >> and not another link to another intermediary site. And you hope that >> there is no malware along the way. > [...] > > I haven't installed anything on Windows in a while, but as I recall > if you want to install a software package, it's almost always best > to go directly to the project site and look for a Windows installer. > Third-party download sites are best avoided if at all possible. > That's true when it is possible. But for some software, especially for popular zero-cost software (whether it be truly free, or zero-cost demos, limited versions, shareware, etc.), the publishing site simply does not have the bandwidth to provide direct downloads. They rely on third-party download sites, which rely on advertising or re-directs for their income.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 09:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnoa50twco.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #92052 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> 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.
You keep claiming that Clang on Windows has a dependency on gcc.
I have yet to see any evidence that that's true.
My understanding, based mostly on what you've written, is that
Clang on Windows depends on some other components that can be
provided by installing some package that happens to include gcc.
That does not imply a dependency on gcc itself.
For example, suppose Clang depends on FOO. Somebody has put together
a bundle consisting of gcc+FOO. You can install the gcc+FOO bundle
and then install Clang, and that would satisfy the dependency and
give you a working Clang. It should also be possible to satisfy
the same dependency by installing FOO and then Clang, or by using
a Clang+FOO bundle.
It may be that installing the gcc+FOO bundle is (currently) the
easiest way to get a working Clang on Windows. If so, that's a pity
(but it's probably not something anyone here can do anything about).
Does Clang on Windows have a dependency on gcc itself (which is
a *compiler*)? If not, please stop saying that it does.
>> 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.
And you'd rather complain about that than spend a few seconds looking it
up.
[...]
--
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]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 17:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nofm46$1cb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92079 |
On 10/08/2016 17:36, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> 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. > > You keep claiming that Clang on Windows has a dependency on gcc. > I have yet to see any evidence that that's true. Well it has a dependency on SOMETHING because it doesn't work otherwise. But since you seem to know more about this than I do, what exactly do you have to download, after downloading clang for Windows, to make it work? What is it even called, this extra thing you have to download? And where does one get it from? (And please don't say to download Msys or Cygwin. We're talking about what is needed to get clang for Windows compiling HelloWorld.c, first into an object and then into an executable. It really is that simple. There is NO REASON in the world to drag all this Linux stuff into it.) > My understanding, based mostly on what you've written, is that > Clang on Windows depends on some other components that can be > provided by installing some package that happens to include gcc. > That does not imply a dependency on gcc itself. OK, so 'gcc' is a very blunt term that can be used to mean almost anything. Including just the source code for gcc. (And looking at the gcc/gnu website, it is astoundingly bad at describing what it is supposed to be and where to get it. After a while you realise that it doesn't concern itself with precompiled versions at all.) Using common sense however, if someone says that clang depends on gcc, then it might be assumed the latter means a working installation of gcc. >> I've no idea what pacman is (apart from the game) or why it would be needed. > > And you'd rather complain about that than spend a few seconds looking it > up. Why would someone suddenly introduce this red herring out of nowhere? This subject of this subthread is clang under Windows for people who already have no idea about MSYS and CYGWIN and are not particularly interested in them either. Now they have to go and educate themselves about PACMAN? Sorry; while I might be interested in Clang, it doesn't stretch further than that. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 11:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lny444sbl5.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #92088 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 10/08/2016 17:36, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> 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.
>>
>> You keep claiming that Clang on Windows has a dependency on gcc.
>> I have yet to see any evidence that that's true.
>
> Well it has a dependency on SOMETHING because it doesn't work otherwise.
>
> But since you seem to know more about this than I do, what exactly do
> you have to download, after downloading clang for Windows, to make it
> work? What is it even called, this extra thing you have to download?
I don't know. As I've mentioned before I haven't even used Windows
lately.
Has it not occurred to you that there might be a better place to
find out? http://clang.llvm.org/ is likely to be a good starting
point. Several mailing lists and other forums are mentioned in
the left column. If you click on the download link, you'll find
"Clang for Windows" links, both 32 and 64 bits, pointing to *.exe
installers. Perhaps that's what you tried before. I don't know,
and am not able to find out, whether installing those will give
you a working Clang system.
[...]
> OK, so 'gcc' is a very blunt term that can be used to mean almost
> anything.
No, it isn't. *You* insist on using the term incorrectly. Most of the
rest of us don't have any problem understanding that it's a compiler
collection, not a full C implementation.
[...]
--
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]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 20:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nofv94$3hv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92092 |
On 10/08/2016 19:49, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > Has it not occurred to you that there might be a better place to > find out? http://clang.llvm.org/ is likely to be a good starting > point. I've looked at some of it. The documentation is poor. It thinks people have an interest in LLVM and the rest, or building from scratch; they haven't! They just want another C compiler to install for Windows as an alternative to the rest, and one that is ready to use. But clang as provided isn't that. Fine, but they haven't bothered to point that out anywhere, leaving it to users to waste time finding these things out for themselves. I think it took me a couple of years to find out, as it was silently piggy-backing itself onto my mingw installation! So clang as provided doesn't have any standard headers. It has no libraries, and apparently it has no linker of its own. Yet clang.exe is a 49MB executable! The whole download is over 400MB. > Several mailing lists and other forums are mentioned in > the left column. If you click on the download link, you'll find > "Clang for Windows" links, both 32 and 64 bits, pointing to *.exe > installers. Perhaps that's what you tried before. I don't know, > and am not able to find out, whether installing those will give > you a working Clang system. But why should anyone bother if they are not willing to make the effort? Google 'Pelles C'. Click on the first link that should be smorgasbordet. That's its homepage: "complete development kit for Windows". Click Downloads. The first link here is for the 64-bit version, the second for 32-bit. Click to download and run the installer. Everything is provided to compile C programs into object files and to link those into executables. THAT is how it's done. You seem to think that it is some failing on my part that I don't want to jump through some ridiculous hoops, including ones I don't even know about, which it is again my fault for not investigating what they are! > [...] > >> OK, so 'gcc' is a very blunt term that can be used to mean almost >> anything. > > No, it isn't. *You* insist on using the term incorrectly. Most of the > rest of us don't have any problem understanding that it's a compiler > collection, not a full C implementation. I don't believe that anyone talking about 'gcc' is mainly using it that very narrow sense. Here's someone else asking questions: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/32239122/what-do-you-need-to-install-to-use-clang-on-windows-to-build-c14-for-64-bit And they also talk about gcc: "Which seems to indicate that clang is not seeing gcc's files. It seems that some versions of LLVM/clang are looking for only certain versions of gcc, but that doesn't seem to be documented anywhere?" I doubt anyone was confused about what they meant. -- Bartc -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 13:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnpopgs817.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #92096 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 10/08/2016 19:49, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> Has it not occurred to you that there might be a better place to
>> find out? http://clang.llvm.org/ is likely to be a good starting
>> point.
>
> I've looked at some of it. The documentation is poor. It thinks people
> have an interest in LLVM and the rest, or building from scratch; they
> haven't!
>
> They just want another C compiler to install for Windows as an
> alternative to the rest, and one that is ready to use.
>
> But clang as provided isn't that. Fine, but they haven't bothered to
> point that out anywhere, leaving it to users to waste time finding these
> things out for themselves.
>
> I think it took me a couple of years to find out, as it was silently
> piggy-backing itself onto my mingw installation!
I believe I mentioned the mailing lists. One of them would probably be
a good place to discuss the difficulties of installing clang on Windows.
[...]
--
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]
| From | Tim Prince <tprince@computer.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 18:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <e11nf4F7g0nU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #92097 |
On 8/10/2016 4:06 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 10/08/2016 19:49, Keith Thompson wrote: >> They just want another C compiler to install for Windows as an >> alternative to the rest, and one that is ready to use. >> >> But clang as provided isn't that. Fine, but they haven't bothered to >> point that out anywhere, leaving it to users to waste time finding these >> things out for themselves. > > I believe I mentioned the mailing lists. One of them would probably be > a good place to discuss the difficulties of installing clang on Windows. > > [...] > clang didn't appear difficult to install for cygwin, and I'd want to see compelling reasons to prefer it over gcc before becoming interested in other Windows aspects. Even though Intel is pushing the open source OpenMP for clang on other platforms, I didn't see it showing up on Windows. I guess a large part of their interest may be a result of Apple policies. clang appeared to out-perform gcc in simd reduction of min |max , but that's more of an OpenMP question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-10 21:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4p0oqbh4ail533kg8acdg2u1p3n2d47n6f@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #92096 |
On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 20:28:32 +0100, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >On 10/08/2016 19:49, Keith Thompson wrote: >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> Has it not occurred to you that there might be a better place to >> find out? http://clang.llvm.org/ is likely to be a good starting >> point. > >I've looked at some of it. The documentation is poor. It thinks people >have an interest in LLVM and the rest, or building from scratch; they >haven't! > >They just want another C compiler to install for Windows as an >alternative to the rest, and one that is ready to use. > >But clang as provided isn't that. Fine, but they haven't bothered to >point that out anywhere, leaving it to users to waste time finding these >things out for themselves. > >I think it took me a couple of years to find out, as it was silently >piggy-backing itself onto my mingw installation! > >So clang as provided doesn't have any standard headers. It has no >libraries, and apparently it has no linker of its own. Yet clang.exe is >a 49MB executable! The whole download is over 400MB. > >> Several mailing lists and other forums are mentioned in >> the left column. If you click on the download link, you'll find >> "Clang for Windows" links, both 32 and 64 bits, pointing to *.exe >> installers. Perhaps that's what you tried before. I don't know, >> and am not able to find out, whether installing those will give >> you a working Clang system. > >But why should anyone bother if they are not willing to make the effort? > >Google 'Pelles C'. Click on the first link that should be smorgasbordet. >That's its homepage: "complete development kit for Windows". Click >Downloads. > >The first link here is for the 64-bit version, the second for 32-bit. >Click to download and run the installer. > >Everything is provided to compile C programs into object files and to >link those into executables. > >THAT is how it's done. You seem to think that it is some failing on my >part that I don't want to jump through some ridiculous hoops, including >ones I don't even know about, which it is again my fault for not >investigating what they are! > >> [...] >> >>> OK, so 'gcc' is a very blunt term that can be used to mean almost >>> anything. >> >> No, it isn't. *You* insist on using the term incorrectly. Most of the >> rest of us don't have any problem understanding that it's a compiler >> collection, not a full C implementation. > >I don't believe that anyone talking about 'gcc' is mainly using it that >very narrow sense. > >Here's someone else asking questions: > >http://stackoverflow.com/questions/32239122/what-do-you-need-to-install-to-use-clang-on-windows-to-build-c14-for-64-bit > >And they also talk about gcc: > >"Which seems to indicate that clang is not seeing gcc's files. It seems >that some versions of LLVM/clang are looking for only certain versions >of gcc, but that doesn't seem to be documented anywhere?" > >I doubt anyone was confused about what they meant. > >-- >Bartc Your arguments are specious. You are deliberately whining. I went here: http://llvm.org/builds/ from Keith's link. I downloaded and ran the installer, opened my VS2010 Ultimate, selected my little hello.sln project, set the project to use clang, just as they describe on the page above, compiled and ran the program. Elapsed time from commencement of download: 6 minutes. I don't have gcc (in any meaning of your usage of that word), msys, cygwin or any of the linux machines on this system. You have wasted more time pissing and moaning about how hard it is than I needed to install and use it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 10:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nohgst$bh3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92114 |
On 11/08/2016 05:53, Geoff wrote: > On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 20:28:32 +0100, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > >> But clang as provided isn't that. Fine, but they haven't bothered to >> point that out anywhere, leaving it to users to waste time finding these >> things out for themselves. >> >> I think it took me a couple of years to find out, as it was silently >> piggy-backing itself onto my mingw installation! >> >> So clang as provided doesn't have any standard headers. It has no >> libraries, and apparently it has no linker of its own. Yet clang.exe is >> a 49MB executable! The whole download is over 400MB. > Your arguments are specious. You are deliberately whining. > > I went here: http://llvm.org/builds/ from Keith's link. > > I downloaded and ran the installer, opened my VS2010 Ultimate, > selected my little hello.sln project, set the project to use clang, > just as they describe on the page above, compiled and ran the program. That doesn't contradict what I said. Try deleting, disabling or hiding your 'VS2010 Ultimate'. Does clang still compile .c files? Your link says this: "The current installer integrates with MSVC 2010, 2012, 2013 and 14 CTP." Actually I've never seen that page before as I looked at the Releases page with the enticingly named "Clang for Windows" links. Nevertheless, I've just downloaded the version on the page above. Installing that required me to uninstall my old clang (it doesn't allow multiple versions in different paths). When it was finished, I found Clang now no longer worked at all! Not even piggy-backing on top of gcc/tdm. And there is even some MSVC version in there somewhere. So, instead of a 438MB 64-bit clang installation that worked (even if in collaboration with gcc/TDM), I now have a 647MB 32-bit clang that doesn't work at all! I'm really glad I followed your advice.... -- Bartc > Elapsed time from commencement of download: 6 minutes. > > I don't have gcc (in any meaning of your usage of that word), msys, > cygwin or any of the linux machines on this system. > > You have wasted more time pissing and moaning about how hard it is > than I needed to install and use it. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 11:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nohicn$fua$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92115 |
On 11/08/2016 10:35, BartC wrote: > On 11/08/2016 05:53, Geoff wrote: >> Your arguments are specious. You are deliberately whining. > Nevertheless, I've just downloaded the version on the page above. > When it was finished, I found Clang now no longer worked at all! I managed to re-download from the other link called "Clang for Windows". Now that works again (with gcc/tdm). I just wasted 130MB of downloads for nothing. It does seem strange however that if Clang is just a pure C compiler as Keith is fond of constantly pointing out, that there should such a dramatic difference between a version that works with VS, and a version that works with ... whatever it is that gcc/tdm has got. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 09:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln8tw3s1oe.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #92117 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 11/08/2016 10:35, BartC wrote:
>> On 11/08/2016 05:53, Geoff wrote:
>>> Your arguments are specious. You are deliberately whining.
>
>> Nevertheless, I've just downloaded the version on the page above.
>
>> When it was finished, I found Clang now no longer worked at all!
>
> I managed to re-download from the other link called "Clang for Windows".
> Now that works again (with gcc/tdm). I just wasted 130MB of downloads
> for nothing.
>
> It does seem strange however that if Clang is just a pure C compiler as
> Keith is fond of constantly pointing out, that there should such a
> dramatic difference between a version that works with VS, and a version
> that works with ... whatever it is that gcc/tdm has got.
Perhaps the "Clang for Windows" *.exe file you downloaded installs more
than just the Clang compiler. Perhaps installing Clang on Windows isn't
as bad as your incessant whining implies.
--
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]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 18:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <noie4c$enu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92131 |
On 11/08/2016 17:36, Keith Thompson wrote:
> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> On 11/08/2016 10:35, BartC wrote:
>>> On 11/08/2016 05:53, Geoff wrote:
>>>> Your arguments are specious. You are deliberately whining.
>>
>>> Nevertheless, I've just downloaded the version on the page above.
>>
>>> When it was finished, I found Clang now no longer worked at all!
>>
>> I managed to re-download from the other link called "Clang for Windows".
>> Now that works again (with gcc/tdm). I just wasted 130MB of downloads
>> for nothing.
>>
>> It does seem strange however that if Clang is just a pure C compiler as
>> Keith is fond of constantly pointing out, that there should such a
>> dramatic difference between a version that works with VS, and a version
>> that works with ... whatever it is that gcc/tdm has got.
>
> Perhaps the "Clang for Windows" *.exe file you downloaded installs more
> than just the Clang compiler. Perhaps installing Clang on Windows isn't
> as bad as your incessant whining implies.
>
I've seen no evidence so far that clang works as a complete, standalone
and self-contained compiler suite under Windows.
One download called 'clang for Windows' seems to need the bundle that is
also needed by mingw or tdm to make it work (I've had to give up using
'gcc'). Yet another different download seems to need MSVC (which I have
actually, but it still didn't work.)
What I've learned so far:
- Clang on Windows, despite being a hefty size, is a bare compiler with
APPARENTLY no include files, libraries or linker of its own. (There is
something that looks like a linker, but it instead uses mingw's or tdm's
LD program, on one version.)
- The main 'Clang for Windows' download on the main Releases page
APPARENTLY requires a mingw or tdm installation on the same machine for
it to work. HOWEVER THIS IS NOT MENTIONED ANYWHERE. This installation is
440MB.
- There is another download called a 'Windows installer' in another
section of the website, which is supposed to be integrated with MSVC.
But it doesn't work standalone and APPARENTLY only from within Visual
Studio. It doesn't seem to work with mingw or tdm. This one is 670MB.
The standard of even the basic documentation is abysmal. It should not
be necessary to guess these basic facts or find them out by accident. If
you think that's whining, then you're right!
-------------------------
As for gcc vs clang, these are tests I did earlier today on one project
under Windows:
Performance[1] Compilation speed[2]
gcc/TDM (64-bit) 16ms 17.6 seconds
clang (64-bit) 16ms 29.6
Pelles C (64-bit) 18ms 3.3
(Mine) (64-bit) 19ms ----
lccwin32 (32-bit) 20ms 1.4
Tiny C (64-bit) 46ms 1.1
(gcc/TDM (32-bit) 15ms 17.6)
[1] Runtime; the smaller the better (but it is hard to measure at these
small runtimes). The 16ms etc is how long the app takes to byte-compile
a 16.5Kloc program in one file, so approx 1M lps.).
There was no difference between gcc and clang, while others aren't far
behind. All code uses -O3 or equivalent. (gcc -m32 is a bit faster, but
clang -m32 doesn't work, so I can't compare.)
[2] Time to compile the application, 22 modules of generated C code
(some tens of thousands of lines). C-generation time excluded (about 2.4
seconds total for the project.)
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 12:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnwpjnqfwm.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #92136 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 11/08/2016 17:36, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> On 11/08/2016 10:35, BartC wrote:
>>>> On 11/08/2016 05:53, Geoff wrote:
>>>>> Your arguments are specious. You are deliberately whining.
>>>
>>>> Nevertheless, I've just downloaded the version on the page above.
>>>
>>>> When it was finished, I found Clang now no longer worked at all!
>>>
>>> I managed to re-download from the other link called "Clang for Windows".
>>> Now that works again (with gcc/tdm). I just wasted 130MB of downloads
>>> for nothing.
>>>
>>> It does seem strange however that if Clang is just a pure C compiler as
>>> Keith is fond of constantly pointing out, that there should such a
>>> dramatic difference between a version that works with VS, and a version
>>> that works with ... whatever it is that gcc/tdm has got.
>>
>> Perhaps the "Clang for Windows" *.exe file you downloaded installs more
>> than just the Clang compiler. Perhaps installing Clang on Windows isn't
>> as bad as your incessant whining implies.
>
> I've seen no evidence so far that clang works as a complete, standalone
> and self-contained compiler suite under Windows.
[snip]
> The standard of even the basic documentation is abysmal. It should not
> be necessary to guess these basic facts or find them out by accident. If
> you think that's whining, then you're right!
Why are you complaining about it **here**??? There may well be real
problems (I'm simply not in a position to judge that), but we're not in
a position to do anything to fix them.
Have you tried the mailing lists I pointed you to?
--
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]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 20:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <noiguh$p2l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92142 |
Le 11/08/2016 à 21:11, Keith Thompson a écrit : > > Why are you complaining about it **here**??? But why not if he feels like? Why should we always accept that GNU is the best thing since sliced bread was invented? Or Clang or whatever? Who are you to say what is on topic here or not? Aren't C compilers here always on topic? What are you talking about? > There may well be real > problems (I'm simply not in a position to judge that), but we're not in > a position to do anything to fix them. > Of course not. Nobody has ever asked YOU to fix anything. Nobody is complaining to you but to clang, what is a different thing > Have you tried the mailing lists I pointed you to? > This one is perfectly ok for complaining. Why not?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 19:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <noihj6$quv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #92142 |
On 11/08/2016 20:11, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> The standard of even the basic documentation is abysmal. It should not >> be necessary to guess these basic facts or find them out by accident. If >> you think that's whining, then you're right! > > Why are you complaining about it **here**??? Because people *here* keep telling me the problem is my ineptitude. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-11 12:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnoa4zqej4.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #92146 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 11/08/2016 20:11, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> The standard of even the basic documentation is abysmal. It should not
>>> be necessary to guess these basic facts or find them out by accident. If
>>> you think that's whining, then you're right!
>>
>> Why are you complaining about it **here**???
>
> Because people *here* keep telling me the problem is my ineptitude.
Is that why you haven't asked on the Clang mailing lists?
--
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]
Page 6 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web