Re: Good C compiler for WIN64

From	David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Good C compiler for WIN64
Date	2018-02-09 10:33 +0100
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<p5jpu3$anu$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	<2293394508@f153.n1.z21.fsxnet> <AoGdnYFSy_qHruHHnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <CrXeC.576756$eO2.362944@fx34.am4> <p5hjos$49a$1@dont-email.me> <Y5udnaNXkqzjEOHHnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 08/02/18 18:47, Robbie Hatley wrote:
> 
> (Drat, hit "reply" instead of "followup" again. Let's try that again.)

(I was wondering about that - I saw the email before the Usenet posting.
 I'm sure we've all done it on occasion.)

> 
> On 2/8/2018 5:36 AM, David Brown wrote:
> 
>> Mingw (including tdm) has less complete Posix emulation,
>> but is far simpler and easier to work with
> 
> According to Wikipedia, MinGW hasn't been updated since 2013.
> 
> Someone did a fork recently called "MinGW-w64", but it's by a different
> author.

Yes.  I was using "mingw" generically here - my first reply to the OP
specified mingw-w64.  The naming here is a bit confusing (people could
easily think that one is for 32-bit windows, the other for 64-bit),
perhaps, but Wikipedia/Google are very helpful.

A key point of difference is that in the original mingw the aim was a
port of the compiler, and it used MS's C libraries.  That meant abysmal
C99 support.  Mingw-w64 uses a proper C library (I can't remember which
one off-hand), thus giving much more complete modern C support.  And it
can generate 32-bit and 64-bit code.

tdm is a packaging of mingw or mingw-w64 toolchains, aimed at being as
easy as possible to install.  It seems to be a little out of date, but
the C world doesn't change /that/ quickly.

> 
> "MSYS2" is, according to my research, a rehash of Cygwin.

It is based on a similar principle.  But it is compiled using the
mingw-w64 toolchain rather than the cygwin toolchain.  That means all
the ports have a much lighter Posix interface layer.  You get the same
tools - mv, cp, cat, grep, awk, sed, etc.  Cygwin has layers to make the
filesystem appear Posix-style with a single root, while mingw uses
Windows-style file names (or with forward slashes if you prefer).
Cygwin provides "fork", at great expense, while mingw only has "vfork".
 Cygwin generated programs require a fair number of dll's, and get
really upset when you have more than one cygwin1.dll in use at a time -
mingw generated programs have a lot more done with static linking
because the interface code is small enough.

All in all, cygwin gives you the closest to Posix on Windows, but is
slow and always feels a bit alien.  Mingw and msys (or the newer
mingw-w64 and msys2) are more efficient and integrate far better in the
windows world.  It is a choice - for me, it is always mingw-w64/msys2
first, and cygwin if it is unavoidable.

(There are also major licensing differences, if you are interested in
that aspect.)

> 
> Cygwin's Linuxification of Windows suits me fine. That, and I already
> have it installed and running. And, I love it's enormous collection of
> optional elements, and frequent updates, sometimes daily. (Sometimes
> twice daily.)
> 
> But MinGW-w64 and MSYS2 do sound intriguing. I'm tempted to install both
> just to learn more about them. Especially if one or the other is set-up
> to create Windows GUI apps.

Give them a try - you have nothing to lose but your time and effort!

I think trying to write Windows gui apps in C is a path to insanity -
there are much better languages for the job.  mingw (all variants)
support C++, which many think is better for guis.  (mingw-64 will give
you newer gcc, as C++ /does/ change quickly.)  Popular toolkits are
wxWidgets and QT, but there are many, many others with different
balances of features and complexity.  Head to comp.lang.c++ for some
info about a new toolkit written by someone there, if that's your cup of
tea.

Personally, I write most gui stuff with Python these days.  I'm a fan of
looking for the right language for the job, rather than trying to do
everything with the one language.

> 
> Currently I'm using National Instruments "CVI/LabWindows" for most GUI
> apps I create (which isn't often; must stuff I do is better done via CLI).
> But CVI does have its limitations.
> 
> I also sometimes use AutoIt to create Windows GUI apps. And it's free.
> Go to web site autoitscript.com for more info.
> 
> I also used to have Bloodshed's "Dev C++" IDE installed. I need to
> reinstall that. (Got wiped out in last HD crash.) It can use any GCC
> type compiler (Cygwin, MinGW-w64, MSYS2, etc) as its compiler. It also
> has a MinGW-based C & C++ compiler built-in.
> 
> And I used to have a very-old installation of Microsoft Visual Studio,
> but I can't afford to spend thousands of $ on the latest version of that.
> (I might re-install the old version, though, just to keep from completely
> forgetting the Win32 API.)
> 
> So there are lots of options out there, many of them free.
> 

Yes.

Thread

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

csiph-web