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 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
| From | The Doctor <doctor@doctor.nl2k.ab.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 17:29 +0000 |
| Subject | GCC vs Clang |
| Message-ID | <nmtl69$2gpe$44@gallifrey.nk.ca> |
Which is the better compiler? Also are there any toher C / C++ compilers? -- Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising! http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism Language is the source of misunderstandings. -Antoine de Saint-Exupery
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Luuk <luuk@invalid.lan> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 20:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <57926354$0$5888$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #90795 |
On 22-07-16 19:29, The Doctor wrote: > Which is the better compiler? > > Also are there any toher C / C++ compilers? > > http://www.thefreecountry.com/compilers/cpp.shtml
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 21:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nmtr1r$rhi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90795 |
Le 22/07/2016 à 19:29, The Doctor a écrit : > Which is the better compiler? > > Also are there any toher C / C++ compilers? > > A free C compiler for windows platforms: http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32 64 bit compiler (C99 mostly) with 128 bit integers, many extra numeric types like qfloats (480 bit floats) bignums, etc Fast compiler but approx 60-70% of fully optimized gcc only. Source code available at request (not free) Compiler binaries are free. jacob
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 12:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln37n1iik2.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #90808 |
[The OP tried to cross-post to comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++, but
mistyped the latter as "comp.lang,c++". This followup goes only to
comp.lang.c.]
jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
> Le 22/07/2016 à 19:29, The Doctor a écrit :
>> Which is the better compiler?
>>
>> Also are there any toher C / C++ compilers?
>
> A free C compiler for windows platforms:
>
> http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
>
> 64 bit compiler (C99 mostly) with 128 bit integers, many extra numeric
> types like qfloats (480 bit floats) bignums, etc
>
> Fast compiler but approx 60-70% of fully optimized gcc only.
>
> Source code available at request (not free)
> Compiler binaries are free.
And quoting the web page:
This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob
Navia. It's free for **non-commercial** use, if you use it
professionally you have to have to buy a licence.
(jacob, you might want to delete the extraneous "have to" there.)
(I apologize for my newsreaders poor treatment of non-ASCII characters.)
--
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 | 2016-07-22 23:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nmu2ng$nsi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90810 |
Le 22/07/2016 à 21:22, Keith Thompson a écrit : > > And quoting the web page: > > This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob > Navia. It's free for **non-commercial** use, if you use it > professionally you have to have to buy a licence. > > (jacob, you might want to delete the extraneous "have to" there.) > > (I apologize for my newsreaders poor treatment of non-ASCII characters.) > This person has posted this rubbish each time I answer somebody that is looking for a compiler. Implied is that I am shrewd and greedy guy trying to profit from others, even if he will (of course) deny all such claims. Since I haven't any means of figuring out how do you use my compiler, that clause is completely bogus and he knows that. By the way, it is a great idea to not give your code away in a GPL/Whatever license and keep the ownership of your work. That allows the author to pay the bills, and makes the stealing of his work by companies that specialize in selling GPL software impossible. Those companies make a buck without ever giving anything to the people that worked to write that code. I explicitely said that my software is NOT FREE in my web site, in the sense that I do not want you to steal it. My work is still my own. This comment is even more disgusting because the author of the original message di not even ask for free compilers. He asked if there are "other compilers" out there.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 14:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnlh0tgwvc.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #90820 |
jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
> Le 22/07/2016 à 21:22, Keith Thompson a écrit :
>> And quoting the web page:
>>
>> This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob
>> Navia. It's free for **non-commercial** use, if you use it
>> professionally you have to have to buy a licence.
>>
>> (jacob, you might want to delete the extraneous "have to" there.)
>>
>> (I apologize for my newsreaders poor treatment of non-ASCII characters.)
>>
>
> This person has posted this rubbish each time I answer somebody that is
> looking for a compiler.
That's about the response I expected. I'm disappointed, but not surprised.
--
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 | jameskuyper@verizon.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 15:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ee0cda3c-ccec-4d2c-88a5-b667d31e82a5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #90820 |
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 5:20:54 PM UTC-4, jacobnavia wrote: > Le 22/07/2016 à 21:22, Keith Thompson a écrit : > > > > And quoting the web page: > > > > This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob > > Navia. It's free for **non-commercial** use, if you use it > > professionally you have to have to buy a licence. > > > > (jacob, you might want to delete the extraneous "have to" there.) > > > > (I apologize for my newsreaders poor treatment of non-ASCII characters.) > > > > This person has posted this rubbish each time I answer somebody that is > looking for a compiler. If it's "rubbish", then you're the one responsible for it - he's only quoting words from your own web site. I've asked you before, and you've never bothered answering - why do you object to a true citation of words you've actually written, and published on a publically visible web site? > Implied is that I am shrewd and greedy guy trying to profit from others, > even if he will (of course) deny all such claims. I don't consider any of that to be implied. He's only implied that you were careless by incorrectly describing your compiler as free. However, if you consider that an insult, why do you charge for commercial use of your compiler? If you don't consider it insulting to be a person who charges for commercial use, why do you object to his pointing it out? Personally, I don't consider it insulting to point out that someone charges money for providing a good or service. I like free stuff just as much as any other consumer, but I don't think anyone has any obligation to provide me anything for free. I consider it entirely normal, if they do charge money, that the amount charged will include some net profit. I wouldn't call it "greedy" unless the charge is excessively high. But if you disagree with any or all of those statements, please try to act consistent with your beliefs, and stop charging for commercial use of your product. > Since I haven't any means of figuring out how do you use my compiler, > that clause is completely bogus and he knows that. Then why do you provide a clause you consider to be bogus? Incidentally, it isn't. In principle, the fact that you publish such a clause could be used to support a lawsuit against someone that you do find out is putting your compiler to commercial use. Even if you can't always find out that someone is doing that, the possibility that you might find out has some deterrent effect. > I explicitely said that my software is NOT FREE in my web site, in the > sense that I do not want you to steal it. My work is still my own. Yet, in your own message that he was responding to, you describe it incorrectly as "A free compiler". If you would either stop describing it as a free compiler, or stop charging for commercial use, whichever option you prefer, no one would feel any need to correct you in that regard. > This comment is even more disgusting because the author of the original > message di not even ask for free compilers. .. True, but you responded by incorrectly describing your compiler as free.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 00:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <471a79ec-bb0d-4981-b16b-840b6e75ac78@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #90820 |
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:20:54 PM UTC+1, jacobnavia wrote: > > Implied is that I am shrewd and greedy guy trying to profit from others, > even if he will (of course) deny all such claims. > Some people take the view that all software companies are evil. But even they really mean Microsoft and Apple, not Logiquels/informatique. If someone is a significant gcc contributor and criticises Jacob then I disagree, but they've got a certain legitimacy to their position. However I don't see any people who contribute significantly to gcc or indeed any Open Source / free software project harassing Jacob. I write some software for free, but most is currently closed source, and I get paid for it. Jacob releases the executable of his compiler for free to personal users, and makes money on professional licences. 100% perfectly legitimate business, and I wish him well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 20:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nn0dae$dp6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90830 |
Le 23/07/2016 à 09:59, Malcolm McLean a écrit : > On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:20:54 PM UTC+1, jacobnavia wrote: >> >> Implied is that I am shrewd and greedy guy trying to profit from others, >> even if he will (of course) deny all such claims. >> > Some people take the view that all software companies are evil. But > even they really mean Microsoft and Apple, not Logiquels/informatique. > If someone is a significant gcc contributor and criticises Jacob > then I disagree, but they've got a certain legitimacy to their > position. > > However I don't see any people who contribute significantly to gcc > or indeed any Open Source / free software project harassing Jacob. > I write some software for free, but most is currently closed source, > and I get paid for it. Jacob releases the executable of his compiler > for free to personal users, and makes money on professional licences. > 100% perfectly legitimate business, and I wish him well. > Thanks Malcom
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 12:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lneg6kgo46.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #90830 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 10:20:54 PM UTC+1, jacobnavia wrote:
>> Implied is that I am shrewd and greedy guy trying to profit from others,
>> even if he will (of course) deny all such claims.
>>
> Some people take the view that all software companies are evil. But
> even they really mean Microsoft and Apple, not Logiquels/informatique.
> If someone is a significant gcc contributor and criticises Jacob
> then I disagree, but they've got a certain legitimacy to their
> position.
>
> However I don't see any people who contribute significantly to gcc
> or indeed any Open Source / free software project harassing Jacob.
> I write some software for free, but most is currently closed source,
> and I get paid for it. Jacob releases the executable of his compiler
> for free to personal users, and makes money on professional licences.
> 100% perfectly legitimate business, and I wish him well.
Are you implying that I harassed jacob? I did not, and I resent the
implication. If you misunderstood what I wrote, please re-read it.
--
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 | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 12:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <34d609fb-be36-4545-8416-586047d18a8a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #90855 |
On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 8:18:08 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote:
>
> Are you implying that I harassed jacob? I did not, and I resent the
> implication. If you misunderstood what I wrote, please re-read it.
>
[Jacob]
> A free C compiler for windows platforms:
>
> http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
>
> 64 bit compiler (C99 mostly) with 128 bit integers, many extra numeric
> types like qfloats (480 bit floats) bignums, etc
>
> Fast compiler but approx 60-70% of fully optimized gcc only.
>
> Source code available at request (not free)
> Compiler binaries are free.
[Keith]
And quoting the web page:
This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob
Navia. It's free for **non-commercial** use, if you use it
professionally you have to have to buy a licence.
(jacob, you might want to delete the extraneous "have to" there.)
Jacob is promoting his compiler, and you post the catch.
It's not very friendly, and whilst Jacob is showing a bit of
salesmanship, he's not perpetrating a fraud. The compiler is free
to people reading the newsgroup in a personal capacity.
Now someone wanting a compiler for commercial purposes will think
"great, here's a free offering". He'll click on the link and
explore. Then at some point he'll realise that it's not free to
him. But by this time he's looked at it, he's got interested,
he could well hand over the dollars.
It's legitimate selling, it happens all the time, there's usually
a catch or a drawback that you don't make obvious in the initial
pitch, and if someone is following you around announcing it, you
can't make any sales.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 13:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lneg6kf5cj.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #90868 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 8:18:08 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Are you implying that I harassed jacob? I did not, and I resent the
>> implication. If you misunderstood what I wrote, please re-read it.
>>
> [Jacob]
>> A free C compiler for windows platforms:
>>
>> http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
>>
>> 64 bit compiler (C99 mostly) with 128 bit integers, many extra numeric
>> types like qfloats (480 bit floats) bignums, etc
>>
>> Fast compiler but approx 60-70% of fully optimized gcc only.
>>
>> Source code available at request (not free)
>> Compiler binaries are free.
>
> [Keith]
> And quoting the web page:
>
> This software is not freeware, it is copyrighted by Jacob
> Navia. It's free for **non-commercial** use, if you use it
> professionally you have to have to buy a licence.
>
> (jacob, you might want to delete the extraneous "have to" there.)
>
> Jacob is promoting his compiler, and you post the catch.
Yes, I did. That is not harassment.
> It's not very friendly,
I suppose it's not. jacob is not my friend. But there's a very
large gap between "not very friendly" and harassment.
**I just quoted his web page.**
> and whilst Jacob is showing a bit of
> salesmanship, he's not perpetrating a fraud.
I never said or implied that he is.
> The compiler is free
> to people reading the newsgroup in a personal capacity.
> Now someone wanting a compiler for commercial purposes will think
> "great, here's a free offering". He'll click on the link and
> explore. Then at some point he'll realise that it's not free to
> him. But by this time he's looked at it, he's got interested,
> he could well hand over the dollars.
>
> It's legitimate selling, it happens all the time, there's usually
> a catch or a drawback that you don't make obvious in the initial
> pitch, and if someone is following you around announcing it, you
> can't make any sales.
This is a C discussion group, not a forum for sales pitches.
But for the record, I did not say that jacob was making a sales
pitch, and I did not object to what he posted.
You seem to be implying that jacob is deliberately referring
to his compiler as "free", when in fact it is not entirely free.
(I never said that; you did.) jacob provided information that was,
as far as I know, accurate. I provided a little more information
that could be of interest to the original poster.
I deeply resent, on a personal level, jacob's attitude towards
me, the lies he insists on telling about me, and his absurd
insistence that everything I say about him, *critical or not*,
is a personal attack. I honestly do not understand what he has
against me (I've asked). But I have no objection to his compiler
or to the way he chooses to distribute it. (Not that it matters,
but I currently work on proprietary software myself.)
--
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 | 2016-07-23 22:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nn0li5$732$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90873 |
This rubbish doesn't merit a response
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 21:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Killfiles: Learn how they work. They are your friend! (Was: GCC vs Clang) |
| Message-ID | <nn0mmr$c2s$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #90875 |
In article <nn0li5$732$1@dont-email.me>, jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> wrote: >This rubbish doesn't merit a response > I still can't believe that you & Kiki haven't killfiled each other by now. Surely, it is clear by now that you two will never see the world through anything even remotely resembling the same lenses. By the way, it is really rich seeing Kiki state that he is deeply hurt, on a personal level, by the things you post about him. Like, cry me a river...! -- Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from using Leviticus to defend homophobia and Exodus to plaster the Ten Commandments on every school and courthouse to claim that the Old Testament is merely "ancient laws" that "only applies to Jews".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 13:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nn4s3c$qo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90875 |
On 23/07/16 22:54, jacobnavia wrote: > This rubbish doesn't merit a response > Jacob, you are (IMHO) way out of line in your treatment of Keith here. Someone asked for information about compilers, and you gave them a link to your compiler which you described as "a free C compiler". You also said explicitly "Compiler binaries are free." The implication of that description is that people can download that compiler without paying anything, and use it as they want for compiling C code. Clearly, this is not the case. So Keith clarified your description, quoting words from your own webpage. You are very much in the wrong here. But it would take almost no effort for you to correct it, in the manner you have done on your website and in the manner suggested by Keith - simply describe your compiler as "free for non-commercial use" rather than "free" when you describe it in Usenet posts. Such a description would be clearer and more helpful. (It is possible that you are reluctant to refer to commercial versions of your software in this newsgroup, since commercial advertising is severely frowned upon. I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but in my opinion your massive positive contributions to this groups earns you the freedom to link to your commercial compiler in response to direct questions like the OP's.) For the record, I think it is perfectly reasonable to charge for your software, or to give it away freely, or to provide a mixture of models with different licenses for different uses. I am always impressed that you have created a successful business selling compiler software, and also with your skill, dedication and generosity with your CCL library.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 05:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d55d6682-01ac-4c5e-b0fe-f9d91dbdb22a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #90962 |
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 12:10:46 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > On 23/07/16 22:54, jacobnavia wrote: > > This rubbish doesn't merit a response > > > > Jacob, you are (IMHO) way out of line in your treatment of Keith here. > > Someone asked for information about compilers, and you gave them a link > to your compiler which you described as "a free C compiler". You also > said explicitly "Compiler binaries are free." The implication of that > description is that people can download that compiler without paying > anything, and use it as they want for compiling C code. Clearly, this > is not the case. So Keith clarified your description, quoting words > from your own webpage. > It's Jacob's compiler, so let him describe it. For all you know it is free to comp.lang.c readers (except a few individuals, inevitably) and the normal commercial fee is waived. If he was actually perpetrating a fraud, bundling it with malware, or something similar, it would be different. But he's not doing that. At worst he's simply delaying the bad news, which is that it isn't free for commercial use. And advertisers do that all the time. Microsoft released their free compiler with the condition that it could not be used to compile code with a "viral" licence for example. By which they mean GNU. For those of us who respect Stallman as a software developer but maybe not as a political philosopher, that's very irritating. It was buried away in the fine print, needless to say.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 15:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nn551g$uag$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90981 |
On 25/07/16 14:20, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 12:10:46 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: >> On 23/07/16 22:54, jacobnavia wrote: >>> This rubbish doesn't merit a response >>> >> >> Jacob, you are (IMHO) way out of line in your treatment of Keith here. >> >> Someone asked for information about compilers, and you gave them a link >> to your compiler which you described as "a free C compiler". You also >> said explicitly "Compiler binaries are free." The implication of that >> description is that people can download that compiler without paying >> anything, and use it as they want for compiling C code. Clearly, this >> is not the case. So Keith clarified your description, quoting words >> from your own webpage. >> > It's Jacob's compiler, so let him describe it. If Jacob had simply described the compiler in his post in the same manner as he describes it on his website, there would be no problem. However, my main objection is his treatment of Keith, rather than his slightly inaccurate use of "free" in his post (though he has been corrected on this point many times in the past). Whether or not you agree that "a free C compiler" is a good enough approximation, you will surely agree that his attitude to Keith is inappropriate. > For all you know it is free to comp.lang.c readers (except a few individuals, > inevitably) and the normal commercial fee is waived. He is, of course, free to do that - but it would be contradictory to the information on his website. > If he was actually perpetrating a fraud, bundling it with malware, or something > similar, it would be different. But he's not doing that. I have not suggested he is doing anything of the kind. > At worst he's simply > delaying the bad news, which is that it isn't free for commercial use. And > advertisers do that all the time. Calling the compiler "a free C compiler" is false advertising, because it is not a free C compiler. This is a simple fact - and advertisers are not allowed to make such factual errors. Jacob is otherwise clear and honest in his posts - rather than making advertising-style claims of "the best compiler" (which typically cannot be proven or disproved, and are therefore popular with advertisers), he gives factual information such as "approx. 60-70% of gcc speed". > Microsoft released their free compiler with > the condition that it could not be used to compile code with a "viral" licence > for example. By which they mean GNU. For those of us who respect Stallman > as a software developer but maybe not as a political philosopher, that's > very irritating. It was buried away in the fine print, needless to say. > I hold Jacob to a much higher moral scale than Microsoft, because he is (based purely on his newsgroup posts) honest and generous, and is simply trying to make a living from making the best C tools he can. Thus when Jacob advertises something, I expect what he writes to be true. When Microsoft advertise something I would assume it to be an exaggeration, full of fine print or hidden assumptions, or simply lies. So "Microsoft writes adverts this way" is certainly no excuse. But I have no idea why Jacob does not want to clearly state in his posts that his compiler is free for non-commercial use but needs a license for professional usage. He is happy to make that statement on his website, and I find it hard to believe his is trying to lure people in the way you suggest.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 07:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0c9ce388-3ef9-491d-ac09-6632c65b25a7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #90990 |
On Monday, July 25, 2016 at 2:43:19 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > > But I have no idea why Jacob does not want to clearly state in his posts > that his compiler is free for non-commercial use but needs a license for > professional usage. He is happy to make that statement on his website, > and I find it hard to believe his is trying to lure people in the way > you suggest. > I can't speak for Jacob. But no-one wants some annoying person following them round correcting every little simplification which, whilst not exactly a lie, is designed to put a positive gloss on the truth. And everyone with the slightest social awareness does that a bit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 22:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nn0mc2$bp3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90873 |
On 23/07/2016 21:48, Keith Thompson wrote: > This is a C discussion group, not a forum for sales pitches. > But for the record, I did not say that jacob was making a sales > pitch, and I did not object to what he posted. Someone asked about C compilers, and the lccwin one certainly belongs in that list, especially if it's for Windows. To most intents and purposes it is as free as any other. And if someone intends to use it for commercial purposes, I doubt whether the cost of a licence is going to be an issue. (I paid between £100 and £200 I think for MS Visual C nearly 25 years ago, and I never even used it. But it was a business expense.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 13:21 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nn4snp$2qg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90877 |
On 23/07/16 23:08, BartC wrote: > On 23/07/2016 21:48, Keith Thompson wrote: > >> This is a C discussion group, not a forum for sales pitches. >> But for the record, I did not say that jacob was making a sales >> pitch, and I did not object to what he posted. > > Someone asked about C compilers, and the lccwin one certainly belongs in > that list, especially if it's for Windows. > Absolutely. > To most intents and purposes it is as free as any other. Absolutely not. Many uses of a compiler will be non-commercial, and then Jacob's tools are zero cost. But many uses of a compiler are commercial - and therefore his tool is not free. (The definition of "commercial" or "professional" usage also varies - to some vendors, any usage of the tool at a place of work will be "commercial" even if the resulting program is not sold. I am sure Jacob will be happy to clarify such issues - I am merely pointing out that the situation is not as simple as you apparently believe.) Jacob's compiler is free for non-commercial use. There is nothing wrong about that, and there are many other tools in this category. But it is very different from being "free". It is not "free for any use", as many tools are (including gcc and clang). It is not "free software" (again, unlike gcc and clang). No one, as far as I can see, objects to Jacob's model of "free for non-commercial use, paid license for professional use". The only objection is to his describing it as "free" - and then to his vicious personal attacks on someone who clarified the terms. > And if someone > intends to use it for commercial purposes, I doubt whether the cost of a > licence is going to be an issue. That is usually the case. I have no idea what Jacob charges for his tools, but I would assume it is priced in a manner that would not scare away potential customers. > > (I paid between £100 and £200 I think for MS Visual C nearly 25 years > ago, and I never even used it. But it was a business expense.) >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web