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 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 14:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nn54on$tao$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90963 |
On 25/07/2016 12:21, David Brown wrote: > On 23/07/16 23:08, BartC wrote: >> Someone asked about C compilers, and the lccwin one certainly belongs in >> that list, especially if it's for Windows. >> > > Absolutely. > >> To most intents and purposes it is as free as any other. > > Absolutely not. Really? Most people who download lccwin32 - and I think it passed the 1 million download mark long ago - end up having to pay for it? > No one, as far as I can see, objects to Jacob's model of "free for > non-commercial use, paid license for professional use". The only > objection is to his describing it as "free" - and then to his vicious > personal attacks on someone who clarified the terms. Now /that/ is nonsense. It's just persistent bullying. I google for 'free anti-virus' and one of the links is "XXX Antivirus FREE", and the website is free.xxx.com (hiding it so I'm not spamming). The home page says "FREE Antivirus". But when you get to the download page, there are also paid-for versions as well as the free one. Is the description misleading? Inveigling someone in with the promise of free software, but then imposing restrictions on what is free and what isn't. (And I've used this AV software for years and have never paid a penny.) In the case of lccwin32, AFAIK there is nothing that physically stops you using it for commercial purposes without paying any money. Try using the extra features of the AV program without paying... -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Storkamp <mstorkamp@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 09:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mstorkamp-B7CB5F.09300125072016@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu> |
| In reply to | #90989 |
In article <nn54on$tao$1@dont-email.me>, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 25/07/2016 12:21, David Brown wrote: > > On 23/07/16 23:08, BartC wrote: > > >> Someone asked about C compilers, and the lccwin one certainly belongs in > >> that list, especially if it's for Windows. > >> > > > > Absolutely. > > > >> To most intents and purposes it is as free as any other. > > > > Absolutely not. > > Really? Most people who download lccwin32 - and I think it passed the 1 > million download mark long ago - end up having to pay for it? > > > No one, as far as I can see, objects to Jacob's model of "free for > > non-commercial use, paid license for professional use". The only > > objection is to his describing it as "free" - and then to his vicious > > personal attacks on someone who clarified the terms. > > Now /that/ is nonsense. It's just persistent bullying. > > I google for 'free anti-virus' and one of the links is "XXX Antivirus > FREE", and the website is free.xxx.com (hiding it so I'm not spamming). > The home page says "FREE Antivirus". But when you get to the download > page, there are also paid-for versions as well as the free one. > I wasn't aware that Jacob offered a free version of his compiler for commercial use. He now has more than one version? Free, and a more complete paid-for version?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 15:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nn58fl$aul$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90994 |
On 25/07/2016 15:30, Mark Storkamp wrote: > In article <nn54on$tao$1@dont-email.me>, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > >> On 25/07/2016 12:21, David Brown wrote: >>> On 23/07/16 23:08, BartC wrote: >> >>>> 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. >> >> Really? Most people who download lccwin32 - and I think it passed the 1 >> million download mark long ago - end up having to pay for it? >> >>> 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. >> >> Now /that/ is nonsense. It's just persistent bullying. >> >> I google for 'free anti-virus' and one of the links is "XXX Antivirus >> FREE", and the website is free.xxx.com (hiding it so I'm not spamming). >> The home page says "FREE Antivirus". But when you get to the download >> page, there are also paid-for versions as well as the free one. >> > > I wasn't aware that Jacob offered a free version of his compiler for > commercial use. He now has more than one version? Free, and a more > complete paid-for version? The point is that FREE is used everywhere until you get to the nitty gritty of the details. (Then you find out which features are free, several pages in.) In the case of lccwin, everything is explained on the home page. A potential commercial customer will have wasted one click. Not much more time wasted than clicking on follow-up posts, which have the effects of casting aspersions on the product and leaving a bad taste even if the OP was not a commercial customer. (I remember following endless links to supposedly free products, which turned out to be time-limited versions. lccwin at least is not time-limited, is not a crippled version, and is not protected, AFAIK, from misuse.) People are making a big deal out of 'absolutely' nothing. -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 16:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nn57vt$978$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90989 |
On 25/07/16 15:38, BartC wrote: > On 25/07/2016 12:21, David Brown wrote: >> On 23/07/16 23:08, BartC wrote: > >>> 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. > > Really? Most people who download lccwin32 - and I think it passed the 1 > million download mark long ago - end up having to pay for it? I have no idea how many people have downloaded lccwin32, or how many people use it, or for what purposes. But I would bet that many more people download it than use it, and that a fair number of those that use it actively do so in a commercial capacity of some sort (depending on how Jacob defines "commercial") without paying the appropriate license. > >> 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. > > Now /that/ is nonsense. It's just persistent bullying. > > I google for 'free anti-virus' and one of the links is "XXX Antivirus > FREE", and the website is free.xxx.com (hiding it so I'm not spamming). > The home page says "FREE Antivirus". But when you get to the download > page, there are also paid-for versions as well as the free one. > > Is the description misleading? Inveigling someone in with the promise of > free software, but then imposing restrictions on what is free and what > isn't. > I am fine with "free trial", "free for the first month", "free for non-commercial use", or whatever. But advertising something as "free" when it is /not/ free, is misleading. If I thought I had the slightest hope in hell of stopping such misleading anti-virus software advertising, I would complain to them too. The difference is that Jacob is a decent fellow who wants to sell his products because he really believes them to be good tools that will do a good job for the customer. And as an active member of this group, he will see what I write here and may be influenced by it. Anti-virus salesmen sell mainly on the basis of scaremongering and FUD, and have no interest in being clear or upfront in their advertising. > (And I've used this AV software for years and have never paid a penny.) > > In the case of lccwin32, AFAIK there is nothing that physically stops > you using it for commercial purposes without paying any money. Try using > the extra features of the AV program without paying... >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-24 07:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfny44rrt4g.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #90820 |
jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> writes:
> Le 22/07/2016 <<E0>> 21:22, Keith Thompson a ecrit :
>
>> 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. [...]
I have a suggestion that may avoid having to deal with this again
in the future. When someone asks about C compilers, how about
this -
The lcc-win C compiler, for Microsoft Windows systems, and
available as a free download for non-commercial users, can
be found at
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
The lcc-win compiler supports several significant extensions
to C, including <list of up to four or five items>.
Compiler source code is available under commercial licensing
arrangements (website has more information). Executables
may be downloaded directly from the website.
Full disclosure: I hold a majority business interest
in this lcc-win offering.
IMO this statement is perfectly appropriate as a response to a
request for information about C compilers. (That assumes of
course that it does not misrepresent any material fact, but
AFAICT it doesn't.) Based on what I see on the website, I
don't think anyone should feel any need to complain, object, or
try to clarify in response to it. Please feel free to use this
text directly if you would like to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 11:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nn59ls$f9s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90820 |
On 7/22/2016 5:20 PM, jacobnavia wrote: > Le 22/07/2016 à 21:22, Keith Thompson a écrit : [...] > > 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. I agree with you on the "keep the ownership of your work" part. Just because you are willing to give it away for free in some cases, doesn't mean you don't want it to remain "yours". But, while the OP didn't ask for "free", your reply did say yours was a "free compiler". Perhaps a simple "free (for non-commercial use) compiler" wording instead? I understand you say that on the web page (BTW, he's correct about the double "have to have to"), but it can be seen as misleading to not say that here, when you do use the word "free". FYI - My "real job" is writing commercial software, so it would make a difference to me. -- Kenneth Brody
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 02:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cd070038-d983-4732-8602-6e07946686e5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #90820 |
W dniu piątek, 22 lipca 2016 23:20:54 UTC+2 użytkownik jacobnavia napisał: > 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. think we all know who or how keith thompson (common 'supertrolling' (and indeed disgusting) insulter and lunatic workhouse-fightin-devoted-fighter) is - he is specially disgusting and stupid character of this group i agree as to complilers you should gave better offer to make it people use it i think
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 02:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4e3b2e8f-5122-41ab-a720-dcad8aacbe62@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #92240 |
W dniu niedziela, 14 sierpnia 2016 11:01:05 UTC+2 użytkownik fir napisał: > W dniu piątek, 22 lipca 2016 23:20:54 UTC+2 użytkownik jacobnavia napisał: > > 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. > > think we all know who or how keith thompson (common 'supertrolling' (and indeed disgusting) insulter and lunatic workhouse-fightin-devoted-fighter) is - he is specially disgusting and stupid character of this group i agree > > as to complilers you should gave better offer to make > it people use it i think thompson is imo so stupid and stupid making that no shallow words will suffice to express this aura of stupidity he make all the time - he is like braindamage in cildgood that spreads it in massive in later life - relly i dont think he should be tolerated here - his level of making this group so weak as it is is imo primary - when i see outcome of this fellow i often feel some kind of 'moral' sadness and real disgust as to compiler you really should make better offert - if it is not better than gcc and yet is not free why one person should use it? it only has matter for his author (probably) until you will find end expose some feature that it make use it real option
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 20:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nmu0fh$lsv$2@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #90795 |
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 17:29:45 +0000, The Doctor wrote: > Which is the better compiler? Cats or dogs, which is better? Even better, let's dicuss which is better, the Republicans or the Democrats, Islam or Christianity, so we can have a more thorough bloodbath.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 23:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nmu21n$ll9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90817 |
Le 22/07/2016 à 22:42, Jens Stuckelberger a écrit : > On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 17:29:45 +0000, The Doctor wrote: > >> Which is the better compiler? > > Cats or dogs, which is better? Even better, let's dicuss which is > better, the Republicans or the Democrats, Islam or Christianity, so we > can have a more thorough bloodbath. > ???? We can discuss code generation speed, compilation speed, ease of use, features, licenses, many things. Look, compilers aren't religions, or pets, or things "you believe in". Somehow we CAN be reasonable people and dicuss things in a civilized manner. Personally I do not see much difference between the two, but it is just my opinion.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 10:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nn58vf$cnr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90818 |
[Note: deleted the "comp.lang" and "c++" entries from "newsgroup". I assume it was meant to be "comp.lang.c++", but the OP had a comma.] On 7/22/2016 5:09 PM, jacobnavia wrote: > Le 22/07/2016 à 22:42, Jens Stuckelberger a écrit : >> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 17:29:45 +0000, The Doctor wrote: >> >>> Which is the better compiler? >> >> Cats or dogs, which is better? Even better, let's dicuss which is >> better, the Republicans or the Democrats, Islam or Christianity, so we >> can have a more thorough bloodbath. >> > > ???? > > We can discuss code generation speed, compilation speed, ease of use, > features, licenses, many things. > > Look, compilers aren't religions, or pets, or things "you believe in". > Somehow we CAN be reasonable people and dicuss things in a civilized manner. > > Personally I do not see much difference between the two, but it is just my > opinion. Except that all those things you list, including many others, all weigh differently to different people. What might be "deal breaker" level to one person might be "doesn't affect my decision at all" to another. In college, we had a FORTRAN compiler designed for classroom work. It was extremely fast at compiling, but generated extremely poor code. However, given that it would almost always be run numerous times before a successful compile, and once compiled, the program would be run only once, that made perfect sense for its usage. Such a compiler might be "best" for a classroom full of people first learning programming, but not elsewhere. Again, what is "best" depends on the situation. -- Kenneth Brody
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 19:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nn0eec$frc$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90817 |
On 22/07/16 21:42, Jens Stuckelberger wrote: > On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 17:29:45 +0000, The Doctor wrote: > >> Which is the better compiler? > > Cats or dogs, which is better? Cats. Lower maintenance requirements, and far less slobbery. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 19:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5793ca3f.3288390@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #90852 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > On 22/07/16 21:42, Jens Stuckelberger wrote: > > On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 17:29:45 +0000, The Doctor wrote: > > > >> Which is the better compiler? > > > > Cats or dogs, which is better? > > Cats. Lower maintenance requirements, and far less slobbery. But they murder songbirds (and have even driven some to extinction), and are therefore Evil. AFAIAA neither gcc nor clang has ever killed a bird. Not even a penguin. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 11:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nn59up$f9s$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90852 |
On 7/23/2016 2:53 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 22/07/16 21:42, Jens Stuckelberger wrote: >> On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 17:29:45 +0000, The Doctor wrote: >> >>> Which is the better compiler? >> >> Cats or dogs, which is better? > > Cats. Lower maintenance requirements, and far less slobbery. <post type="devil's advocate"> Dogs. More interactive, and more intimidating to people coming to the front door. <!-- NB: I have two cats and a dog. --> </post> -- Kenneth Brody
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 17:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nn5e07$uuc$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91006 |
On 25/07/16 16:07, Ken Brody wrote: > On 7/23/2016 2:53 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 22/07/16 21:42, Jens Stuckelberger wrote: >>> >>> Cats or dogs, which is better? >> >> Cats. Lower maintenance requirements, and far less slobbery. > > <post type="devil's advocate"> > > Dogs. More interactive, "Interactive" is the Microsoft way of saying "this process is manual". -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 07:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <57986250.1380531@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #91020 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > On 25/07/16 16:07, Ken Brody wrote: > > On 7/23/2016 2:53 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > >> On 22/07/16 21:42, Jens Stuckelberger wrote: > >>> > >>> Cats or dogs, which is better? > >> > >> Cats. Lower maintenance requirements, and far less slobbery. > > > > <post type="devil's advocate"> > > > > Dogs. More interactive, > > "Interactive" is the Microsoft way of saying "this process is manual". With a pet, that's exactly what you want. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 08:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nn9ntd$7tl$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91126 |
On 27/07/16 08:27, Richard Bos wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > >> On 25/07/16 16:07, Ken Brody wrote: >>> On 7/23/2016 2:53 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> On 22/07/16 21:42, Jens Stuckelberger wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Cats or dogs, which is better? >>>> >>>> Cats. Lower maintenance requirements, and far less slobbery. >>> >>> <post type="devil's advocate"> >>> >>> Dogs. More interactive, >> >> "Interactive" is the Microsoft way of saying "this process is manual". > > With a pet, that's exactly what you want. Up to a point, Lord Copper. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-27 12:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nnani5$mjd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #91020 |
On 7/25/2016 12:16 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 25/07/16 16:07, Ken Brody wrote: >> On 7/23/2016 2:53 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 22/07/16 21:42, Jens Stuckelberger wrote: >>>> >>>> Cats or dogs, which is better? >>> >>> Cats. Lower maintenance requirements, and far less slobbery. >> >> <post type="devil's advocate"> >> >> Dogs. More interactive, > > "Interactive" is the Microsoft way of saying "this process is manual". Sorry, but the manual is not included. :-) -- Kenneth Brody
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-14 02:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <af75c3e0-2e10-4027-b044-5718dbc0d19b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #90817 |
W dniu piątek, 22 lipca 2016 22:42:32 UTC+2 użytkownik Jens Stuckelberger napisał: > On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 17:29:45 +0000, The Doctor wrote: > > > Which is the better compiler? > > Cats or dogs, which is better? Even better, let's dicuss which is > better, the Republicans or the Democrats, Islam or Christianity, so we > can have a more thorough bloodbath. this question is not bad.. but is hard to answer becouse you would need a good knowledge on both compilers and both are complex thing i could answer only if gcc vs bcc32 (old borland 55) is better (as i know both) - tehnically gcc is far better becouse bcc32 generates real old code with some traps (not too mention here)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 22:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmu2iv$mo0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90795 |
On 22/07/2016 18:29, The Doctor wrote: > Which is the better compiler? My experience of using Clang is that it is not complete: it assumes a gcc installation (so that it can make use of gcc's header files and possibly libraries too). So if you could only install one, gcc would make more sense... -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web