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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #13169 > unrolled thread

Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development

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

Contents

  Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-11-12 01:22 -0800
    Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-12 10:36 +0100
      Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-11-12 02:09 -0800
        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-12 11:37 +0100
          Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-11-12 08:02 -0800
            Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-13 10:24 +1100
            Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-13 10:29 +0100
          Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-12 15:06 -0700
      Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development "ankh" <star67@venus.gov> - 2011-11-12 22:43 -0600
        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-14 21:57 +0100
          Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-15 10:16 +1300
          Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development "Jo" <none@none.none> - 2011-11-19 22:59 -0600
            Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-20 12:58 +0000
              Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201111.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-11-21 07:30 +0100
                Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development "Jo" <none@none.none> - 2011-11-21 01:01 -0600
              Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development "Jo" <none@none.none> - 2011-11-21 00:51 -0600
              Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Brian <nospam@nospam.com> - 2011-11-22 16:47 +0000
                Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-22 12:10 -0500
                  Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-22 20:24 +0100
                Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Richard Sanders <lnr729@gmail.com> - 2011-11-22 10:58 -0800
                  Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-24 00:27 -0800
                Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-22 20:13 +0100
                  Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-23 23:13 +0100
                Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Friedrich Dominicus <just-for-news-frido@q-software-solutions.de> - 2011-11-23 06:28 +0100
                  Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-23 02:45 -0800
                    Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-11-23 10:57 +0000
                      Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-24 01:31 -0800
                Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-23 10:58 +0000
                Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-24 00:26 -0800
      Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-14 01:33 -0800
        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 17:13 +0000
          Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Joe Wright <joewwright@comcast.net> - 2011-11-14 14:36 -0500
          Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-15 00:56 -0800
    Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-11-13 02:59 +0000
      Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Joe Wright <joewwright@comcast.net> - 2011-11-12 22:13 -0500
        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development "ankh" <star67@venus.gov> - 2011-11-13 00:03 -0600
        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-14 21:55 +0100
          Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-15 00:56 -0800
          Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-11-15 07:05 -0800
            Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-15 14:42 -0800
              Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-16 00:17 +0100
              Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-11-15 17:50 -0800
      Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-12 20:38 -0700
        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-11-13 00:00 -0800
          Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-13 01:23 -0700
          Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-13 09:10 +0000
            Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-13 10:33 +0100
              Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-13 23:03 +1300
                Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-13 11:17 +0100
            Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-10 11:29 -0800
              Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-11 09:57 +1300
                Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-10 14:26 -0800
                  Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-11 11:38 +1300
                    Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-10 16:01 -0800
                      Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-11 13:18 +1300
                        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-10 22:50 -0600
                        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-12 11:25 -0800
                      Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-11 03:45 +0000
                        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-12 12:06 -0800
                          Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-12 20:02 +0000
                            Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development John Tsiombikas <nuclear@member.fsf.org> - 2011-12-13 06:28 +0000
                              Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-13 00:32 -0600
                                Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-12-13 10:57 +0100
                  Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-10 23:20 +0000
                    Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-12 12:38 -0800
                      Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-12 20:15 +0000
                        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-12 13:51 -0800
                          Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-12 22:32 +0000
                            Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development John Tsiombikas <nuclear@member.fsf.org> - 2011-12-13 06:40 +0000
                              Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-13 09:19 +0000
                              Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-17 00:52 -0800
                            Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-14 13:00 -0800
                              Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-14 21:53 +0000
                              Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-15 11:18 +1300
                                Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-15 11:16 -0800
                                  Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-15 19:35 +0000
                                    Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-15 13:03 -0800
                                    Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-12-16 03:55 -0800
                                      Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-16 19:50 +0000
                      Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-12 16:54 -0600
                      Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-13 12:03 +1300
                        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-12 17:19 -0600
                          Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-15 11:52 -0800
                      Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Eric Sosman <esosman@ieee-dot-org.invalid> - 2011-12-12 18:34 -0500
                        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-12-13 09:43 +0100
                        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-15 11:33 -0800
              Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-10 21:13 +0000
                Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-10 15:10 -0800
                  Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-10 23:31 +0000
                  Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-12-11 01:57 +0100
                    Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-12 11:46 -0800
                      Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-12-12 15:23 -0500
                        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-12-12 20:02 +0000
                        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-12 14:00 -0800
                          Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-12-12 17:24 -0500
                        Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-12-12 17:06 -0600
                          Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-12-12 18:16 -0500
              Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-12-11 09:03 -0500
                Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-11 08:57 -0800
                Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-12 12:11 -0800
                  Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-12-12 14:25 -0800
                    Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development James Harris <james.harris.1@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-14 13:44 -0800
    Re: Which lean C compiler for 32-bit OS development "ankh" <star67@venus.gov> - 2011-11-12 22:42 -0600

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

#13842

On Nov 22, 6:58 pm, Richard Sanders <lnr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 16:47:02 +0000 (UTC), Brian <nos...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Navia did not write the software. He bought the source code to lcc and
> >the rights to exploit it commercially.
>
> https://github.com/drh/lcc/blob/master/CPYRIGHT
>
> >He has added almost nothing of value to it: only an ugly GUI and a few
> >non-standard proprietary language additions that are useless to anyone
> >who wants to write portable code.
>
> I was happy with LCC-Win until I started to use FLTK that requires
> C++. I found the IDE to be clean without a whole bunch of (dockable)
> windows reducing screen realestate. I wish MinGw compiled as fast as
> LCC-Win.
>
> As for "proprietary language additions". You are not compelled to use
> these non portable additions, they are purly optional.

after all gcc is crawling with bizzare extensions

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

#13793

Le 22/11/11 17:47, Brian a écrit :
rry, but this is factually wrong.
>
> Navia did not write the software. He bought the source code to lcc and
> the rights to exploit it commercially.
>

This is not true.

I have written for the compiler:

o The optimizer (Code of lcc-win is faster than  plain lcc)
o New types supported like long double and long long.
o Ported the code generator to the new CPUs. XMM extensions of
   the x86 CPU.
o Countless fixes and improvements during years of work.
o The assembler. Plain lcc generates ascii. Lcc-win writes object files.
o The linker. Plain lcc has no linker.
o The IDE.
o The debugger.
o The resource editor.
o The make and project handling utility.

> He has added almost nothing of value to it: only an ugly GUI and a few
> non-standard proprietary language additions that are useless to anyone
> who wants to write portable code.

lcc-win is C99. I wrote all necessary modifications to the compiler and
I wrote entirely the C99 C library.

But for these people, no lie will be enough.

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

#13831

Le 22/11/11 20:13, jacob navia a écrit :
> Le 22/11/11 17:47, Brian a écrit :
> rry, but this is factually wrong.
>>
>> Navia did not write the software. He bought the source code to lcc and
>> the rights to exploit it commercially.
>>
>
> This is not true.
>
> I have written for the compiler:
>
> o The optimizer (Code of lcc-win is faster than plain lcc)
> o New types supported like long double and long long.
> o Ported the code generator to the new CPUs. XMM extensions of
> the x86 CPU.
> o Countless fixes and improvements during years of work.
> o The assembler. Plain lcc generates ascii. Lcc-win writes object files.
> o The linker. Plain lcc has no linker.
> o The IDE.
> o The debugger.
> o The resource editor.
> o The make and project handling utility.
>
>> He has added almost nothing of value to it: only an ugly GUI and a few
>> non-standard proprietary language additions that are useless to anyone
>> who wants to write portable code.
>
> lcc-win is C99. I wrote all necessary modifications to the compiler and
> I wrote entirely the C99 C library.
>
> But for these people, no lie will be enough.
>

Well, apparently "jo" and "Brian" kept silent. Until next time when
they will repeat their attacks, their lies, etc.

That is why I get so paranoiac... Years of this anonymous attacks can
transform someone into maybe someone else.

Easy to do for anonymous cowards like those.

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

#13811

Brian <nospam@nospam.com> writes:

>
> He has added almost nothing of value to it: only an ugly GUI and a few 
> non-standard proprietary language additions that are useless to anyone 
> who wants to write portable code.
You have  not the slightest idea, but well you're not  alone with that.


-- 
Please remove just-for-news- to reply via e-mail.

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

#13813

On Nov 23, 7:28 am, Friedrich Dominicus <just-for-news-fr...@q-
software-solutions.de> wrote:
> Brian <nos...@nospam.com> writes:
>
> > He has added almost nothing of value to it: only an ugly GUI and a few
> > non-standard proprietary language additions that are useless to anyone
> > who wants to write portable code.
>
> You have  not the slightest idea, but well you're not  alone with that.
>
Not all code has to be portable. If you add something of value to a C
compiler, really you have to add a non-standard feature. Otherwise
your compiler isn't much different from anyone else's and there's no
reason to choose it.

It seems that Jacob will be criticised either way.

--
NEW!!!!  Sequence logo code
http://www.malcolmmclean.site11.com/www

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

#13814

Malcolm McLean wrote:
) On Nov 23, 7:28?am, Friedrich Dominicus <just-for-news-fr...@q-
) software-solutions.de> wrote:
)> Brian <nos...@nospam.com> writes:
)>
)> > He has added almost nothing of value to it: only an ugly GUI and a few
)> > non-standard proprietary language additions that are useless to anyone
)> > who wants to write portable code.
)>
)> You have ?not the slightest idea, but well you're not ?alone with that.
)>
) Not all code has to be portable. If you add something of value to a C
) compiler, really you have to add a non-standard feature. Otherwise
) your compiler isn't much different from anyone else's and there's no
) reason to choose it.

Well, you can compete in optimization, and you can also upgrade to a new
standard.  C99, in this case.  Oh, and a slick IDE is a selling point as
well.


SaSW, Willem
-- 
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
            made in the above text. For all I know I might be
            drugged or something..
            No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

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

#13848

On Nov 23, 12:57 pm, Willem <wil...@toad.stack.nl> wrote:
>
> Well, you can compete in optimization, and you can also upgrade to a new
> standard.  C99, in this case.  Oh, and a slick IDE is a selling point as
> well.
>
Optimisation is a bit one-dimensional. If you have the most optimal
compiler on the market, you have a unique selling point. But that's
hard to achieve, and you'll likely lose the selling point as the
competition catches up. A better strategy is to segment the
marketplace, e.g. target people who want garbage collection.

There doesn't seem to be much demand for C99. It's a failed standard.
--
Basic Algorithms: a massive compendium of C programming resources
http://www.malcolmmclean.site11.com/www

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

#13815

"Brian" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:jagjm6$q6b$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 12:58:29 +0000, BartC wrote:

>> No. Someone writes some software with a million downloads, but of course
>> they are not good programmers! How many downloads do you have?
>
> Sorry, but this is factually wrong.
>
> Navia did not write the software. He bought the source code to lcc and
> the rights to exploit it commercially.
>
> He has added almost nothing of value to it: only an ugly GUI and a few
> non-standard proprietary language additions that are useless to anyone
> who wants to write portable code.

Well, the original LCC compiler is still available for download. Although 
you will require an existing C compiler, and the know-how to be able to 
build binaries for your platform. And, the time needed to write, acquire, or 
modify various extras that lcc-win already provides (such as windows.h 
perhaps).

It all sounds so straightforward! You wonder why someone doesn't spend an 
hour or so doing this and provide binaries for people to use out-of-the-box.

In fact, Pelles C is also based on LCC! And this product is generally 
well-regarded. It probably took rather more than an hour however.

-- 
Bartc 

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

#13841

On Nov 22, 4:47 pm, Brian <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 12:58:29 +0000, BartC wrote:
> > "Jo" <n...@none.none> wrote in message
> >news:jaa1fn$2nj$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> >> jacob navia wrote:
>
> >>> And you mean what by that sentence? What "song"? Who is "jake"?
>
> >> You are not good at what you want to do. You should change careers. You
> >> are ineffectual and can't program yourself out of a paper bag (nor
> >> write about it). Just a thought.
>
> > No. Someone writes some software with a million downloads, but of course
> > they are not good programmers! How many downloads do you have?
>
> Sorry, but this is factually wrong.
>
> Navia did not write the software. He bought the source code to lcc and
> the rights to exploit it commercially.
>
> He has added almost nothing of value to it:

I'm  pretty sure this is untrue. He's added a wide variety of
extensions and support tools. I'm pretty sure the debugger and
assembler or entirely his. A debugger is *very* non-trivial. The C99
featurs are his too.

> only an ugly GUI and a few
> non-standard proprietary language additions that are useless to anyone
> who wants to write portable code.

Not everyone does.

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

#13267

On Nov 12, 9:36 am, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:

> You will find mostly negative answers about my work in this group.

only because you view any comment as some sort of criticism

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

#13296

On 2011-11-14, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 9:36?am, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
>> You will find mostly negative answers about my work in this group.

> only because you view any comment as some sort of criticism

I had noticed a certain tendency towards that.  I actually rather like some
of Jacob's ideas, but after a while I plonked him because it was too
frustrating trying to talk to him about them.  My options were simpering
praise or being yelled at for my malicious and carefully planned campaign
of slander.  Apparently, "being interested but having a suggestion for
an improvement" is not one of the available states.

-s
-- 
Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.

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

#13304

On 11/14/2011 12:13, Seebs wrote:
> On 2011-11-14, Nick Keighley<nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com>  wrote:
>> On Nov 12, 9:36?am, jacob navia<ja...@spamsink.net>  wrote:
>>> You will find mostly negative answers about my work in this group.
>
>> only because you view any comment as some sort of criticism
>
> I had noticed a certain tendency towards that.  I actually rather like some
> of Jacob's ideas, but after a while I plonked him because it was too
> frustrating trying to talk to him about them.  My options were simpering
> praise or being yelled at for my malicious and carefully planned campaign
> of slander.  Apparently, "being interested but having a suggestion for
> an improvement" is not one of the available states.
>
> -s

Now don't you start. Peter Seebach has more creds in my book that Jacob 
Navia will ever have. Relax. If we really want to see what a good 
programmer can do starting with lcc, let's have a look at Pelle Orinius and 
his PellesC.

-- 
Joe Wright
"If you rob Peter to pay Paul you can depend on the support of Paul."

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

#13359

On Nov 14, 5:13 pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> On 2011-11-14, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 12, 9:36?am, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:

> >> You will find mostly negative answers about my work in this group.
>
> > only because you view any comment as some sort of criticism
>
> I had noticed a certain tendency towards that.  I actually rather
> like some of Jacob's ideas,

ditto. He has ideas that are worth discussing. If he were willing too.


> but after a while I plonked him because it was too
> frustrating trying to talk to him about them.  My options were
> simpering praise or being yelled at for my malicious and carefully
> planned campaign of slander.  Apparently, "being interested but
> having a suggestion for an improvement" is not one of the available
> states.

you can't even have a technical difference of opinion, or suggest
there may be some other option without it being construed as a
personnel attack. Apparently I'm a moron for not agreeing whole-
heartedly with him.

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

#13225

On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 01:22:45 -0800, James Harris wrote:

> gcc is good on Unix but looks very complex to port and I think it needs
> Cygwin on Windows. 

It doesn't. MinGW is the standard "native" Windows port of gcc. The
standard 32-bit DOS port of gcc is DJGPP.

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

#13226

On 11/12/2011 21:59, Nobody wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 01:22:45 -0800, James Harris wrote:
>
>> gcc is good on Unix but looks very complex to port and I think it needs
>> Cygwin on Windows.
>
> It doesn't. MinGW is the standard "native" Windows port of gcc. The
> standard 32-bit DOS port of gcc is DJGPP.
>
Indeed.

-- 
Joe Wright
"If you rob Peter to pay Paul you can depend on the support of Paul."

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

#13231

Joe Wright wrote:
> On 11/12/2011 21:59, Nobody wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 01:22:45 -0800, James Harris wrote:
>>
>>> gcc is good on Unix but looks very complex to port and I think it
>>> needs Cygwin on Windows.
>>
>> It doesn't. MinGW is the standard "native" Windows port of gcc. The
>> standard 32-bit DOS port of gcc is DJGPP.
>>
> Indeed.

RIP. 

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

#13314

Le 13/11/11 04:13, Joe Wright a écrit :
> On 11/12/2011 21:59, Nobody wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 01:22:45 -0800, James Harris wrote:
>>
>>> gcc is good on Unix but looks very complex to port and I think it needs
>>> Cygwin on Windows.
>>
>> It doesn't. MinGW is the standard "native" Windows port of gcc. The
>> standard 32-bit DOS port of gcc is DJGPP.
>>
> Indeed.
>

"Indeed".

You fail to mention that mingw has a C99 compiler but a C80
Microsoft furnished library. This leads to some problems, as you may 
have noticed.

lcc-win has essential parts of the C99 library like printf rewritten.
I do not use tha Microsoft printf, so at least the compiler is
coherent with the C library.

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

#13360

On Nov 14, 8:55 pm, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
> Le 13/11/11 04:13, Joe Wright a écrit :
>
> > On 11/12/2011 21:59, Nobody wrote:
> >> On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 01:22:45 -0800, James Harris wrote:
>
> >>> gcc is good on Unix but looks very complex to port and I think it needs
> >>> Cygwin on Windows.
>
> >> It doesn't. MinGW is the standard "native" Windows port of gcc. The
> >> standard 32-bit DOS port of gcc is DJGPP.
>
> > Indeed.
>
> "Indeed".
>
> You fail to mention that mingw has a C99 compiler but a C80
> Microsoft furnished library. This leads to some problems, as you may
> have noticed.

long double?

> lcc-win has essential parts of the C99 library like printf rewritten.
> I do not use tha Microsoft printf, so at least the compiler is
> coherent with the C library.

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

#13388

On Nov 14, 3:55 pm, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:
> Le 13/11/11 04:13, Joe Wright a écrit :
>
> > On 11/12/2011 21:59, Nobody wrote:
> >> On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 01:22:45 -0800, James Harris wrote:
>
> >>> gcc is good on Unix but looks very complex to port and I think it needs
> >>> Cygwin on Windows.
>
> >> It doesn't. MinGW is the standard "native" Windows port of gcc. The
> >> standard 32-bit DOS port of gcc is DJGPP.
>
> > Indeed.
>
> "Indeed".
>
> You fail to mention that mingw has a C99 compiler but a C80
> Microsoft furnished library. This leads to some problems, as you may
> have noticed.
>
> lcc-win has essential parts of the C99 library like printf rewritten.
> I do not use tha Microsoft printf, so at least the compiler is
> coherent with the C library.

Actually, I recently just blew away my MinGW and reinstalled
everything.  In the latest version of GCC (4.6.1), the C99 printf
modifiers appear to work.  Not sure what they changed, but it appears
that some workaround has been integrated into the MinGW toolchain.

Best regards,
John D.

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

#13435

ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> Actually, I recently just blew away my MinGW and reinstalled
> everything.  In the latest version of GCC (4.6.1), the C99 printf
> modifiers appear to work.  Not sure what they changed, but it appears
> that some workaround has been integrated into the MinGW toolchain.

Interesting.  I just did the same thing, and it still doesn't work
correctly.

Under Cygwin, this program:

#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
    float f        = 123.456;
    double d       = 123.456;
    long double ld = 123.456;

    printf("float: %d bytes, double: %d bytes, long double: %d bytes\n",
           (int)sizeof (float),
           (int)sizeof (double),
           (int)sizeof (long double));
    printf("f  = %g\n",   f);
    printf("d  = %g\n",   d);
    printf("ld = %Lg\n", ld);
    return 0;
}

produces this (correct) output:

float: 4 bytes, double: 8 bytes, long double: 12 bytes
f  = 123.456
d  = 123.456
ld = 123.456

Under MinGW, installed from scratch on Windows 7 just a few minutes
ago,, with gcc 4.6.1, the same program produces this output:

float: 4 bytes, double: 8 bytes, long double: 12 bytes
f  = 123.456
d  = 123.456
ld = -6.41666e+264

Can you try this program on your system?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

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

csiph-web