Free C Compiler on Windows

[karthikbalaguru]

Hi,

I find many compilers available in internet.
I would like to know the best Free C Compiler
on a Windows machine.

Has anyone analyzed that ?

Thx in advans,
Karthik Balaguru

 

[LL]

Hi,

I find many compilers available in internet. I would like to know the
best Free C Compiler on a Windows machine.

Has anyone analyzed that ?

Thx in advans,
Karthik Balaguru

MinGW compiler is one.

 

[Flash Gordon]

MinGW compiler is one.

If you are prepared to accept certain things being broken. If I recall
correctly the format specifiers for at least one type don't work because
it uses one representation in the compiler and then uses the C library
from MS which uses a different representation.

There is no one best compiler for Windows in my opinion. It all depends
on what your requirements are.

There are a number listed on these links:
http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/C_Compilers
http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/C_IDEs

 

[jacob navia]

Hi,

I find many compilers available in internet.
I would like to know the best Free C Compiler
on a Windows machine.

Has anyone analyzed that ?

Thx in advans,
Karthik Balaguru

The lcc-win compiler comes with compiler + IDE and windowed debugger

It offers many extensions to the bare bones C language and allows you to
access all the windows API.

The URL is below

 

[Flash Gordon]

Flash Gordon said:


I think you have to accept that if you're determined to use Windows.
Certainly I've had issues with Borland C, and others have reported
issues with Microsoft C.

I consider the MinGW issue more serious than the issues I remember
seeing reported for reasonably current versions of MS or Borland compilers.

For Win32 API programming, it's hard to beat Visual Studio, once
you've got it set up right. If you're short on time (or just plain
lazy) and are therefore using BCB, however, then Borland C works
just fine for the C bits of the code. (And yes, I do use BCB when
I'm short on time or just plain lazy...)

Personally I would normally reach for either Cygwin or Visual Studio on
Windows depending on my requirements at the time. Cygwin if I want gcc
and/or some level of Posix compatibility, Visual Studio if I want a
Windows application. I've found the Borland implementations tend to get
in my way when I want to dig in to and take control of what is going on.

(I think both of these are available in legally-free versions,
although I paid for my copies thereof.)

I can confirm that the current version of Visual Studio can b legally
downloaded from Microsoft for free. I don't know what limitations apply
to the free version as compared to the paid-for version, I just use what
comes with my company MSDN subscription.

 

[jacob navia]

jacob navia said:


Note, however, that Jacob Navia is the vendor, so this is not an
independent recommendation. Nor does the lcc-win compiler conform
to any known C Standard, so whether it counts as a C compiler
depends heavily on what you mean by "C compiler".

This is a lie since I am not selling anything
The compiler is freely available

I am not a "vendor" moron!

And lcc-win conforms to C99, and will accept most syntax of C90
when it doesn't contradict with the newer standards.

To the original poster:

But you should not take into account what this guy says.
He is a known troll

 

[James Kuyper]

This is a lie since I am not selling anything

On the first page of your web site it says "if you use it professionally
you have to have to buy a licence.", so at the very least you are
selling software licenses.

The compiler is freely available

I am not a "vendor" moron!

You vend software licenses. That makes you a vendor. That you also
provide the same software for free for non-commercial uses does not
invalidate the use of the term "vendor".

And lcc-win conforms to C99, and will accept most syntax of C90
when it doesn't contradict with the newer standards.

So it now has a fully conforming mode in which it diagnosis all uses of
any extensions for which C99 requires a diagnostic?

I assume, also, that you've fixed the va_list problem that you described
on 2009-02-03 in this newsgroup?

To the original poster:

But you should not take into account what this guy says.
He is a known troll

Nonsense.

 

[karthikbalaguru]

Flash Gordon said:







I think you have to accept that if you're determined to use Windows.
Certainly I've had issues with Borland C, and others have reported
issues with Microsoft C.



For Win32 API programming, it's hard to beat Visual Studio, once
you've got it set up right. If you're short on time (or just plain
lazy) and are therefore using BCB, however, then Borland C works
just fine for the C bits of the code. (And yes, I do use BCB when
I'm short on time or just plain lazy...)

(I think both of these are available in legally-free versions,
although I paid for my copies thereof.)

Can you pls provide me with a link of free download.
I do not find links in borland.com.
I got the below link
http://www.johnsmiley.com/cis18.notfree/smiley029/smiley029.htm
that redirects to
http://www.codegear.com/downloads/free/cppbuilder

Is it a C compiler or C++ Compiler ?

Thx in advans,
Karthik Balaguru

 

[Flash Gordon]

This is a lie since I am not selling anything
The compiler is freely available

That does not make you independent. You have spent a lot of time and
effort working on it so you are naturally biased in its favour. There is
nothing wrong with you being in favour of your work, but it does mean
your recommendations are not independent.

Oh, and it is not free for commercial use, so you are selling it. Again,
nothing wrong with selling it, but *you* are lying when you claim that
you are not selling anything.

I am not a "vendor" moron!

You are the vendor, unless you have now passed that role on to someone else?

And lcc-win conforms to C99, and will accept most syntax of C90
when it doesn't contradict with the newer standards.

You've finished implementing C99 then? I'm surprised you did not
announce it.

To the original poster:

But you should not take into account what this guy says.
He is a known troll

He is not a troll. I don't think you try to troll either, but you
certainly fly off the handle and in your zeal to defend yourself against
anything you perceive as an attack start saying things which are
demonstrably false.

 

[Luuk]

karthikbalaguru schreef:

Can you pls provide me with a link of free download.
I do not find links in borland.com.
I got the below link
http://www.johnsmiley.com/cis18.notfree/smiley029/smiley029.htm
that redirects to
http://www.codegear.com/downloads/free/cppbuilder

Is it a C compiler or C++ Compiler ?

Thx in advans,
Karthik Balaguru

start reading at this last page....

it says:
Borland C++ Compiler
Windows 5.5 08/24/2000 8.7 Mb Free Borland C++ Compiler download......

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

jacob navia wrote:

So it now has a fully conforming mode in which it diagnosis all uses
of any extensions for which C99 requires a diagnostic?

I don't know about that, but the version dated 2009-02-22 still has
some C99 long-standing conformance problems. Some are quite old. I
think I reported all those that I found at the time, but some reports
were not acknowledged so Jacob might not have see them. Of course he
may have decided that the reports were erroneous (which is perfectly
possible).

I have suggested before, since full conformance is so hard, that
Jacob simply list the know issues (like gcc does) and then he can say
that lcc-win is "working towards conformance" or some such wording.

 

[Richard]

jacob navia said:


Note, however, that Jacob Navia is the vendor, so this is not an
independent recommendation. Nor does the lcc-win compiler conform
to any known C Standard, so whether it counts as a C compiler
depends heavily on what you mean by "C compiler".

Miaow!

 

[Richard]

That does not make you independent. You have spent a lot of time and
effort working on it so you are naturally biased in its favour. There
is nothing wrong with you being in favour of your work, but it does
mean your recommendations are not independent.

Oh, and it is not free for commercial use, so you are selling
it. Again, nothing wrong with selling it, but *you* are lying when you
claim that you are not selling anything.


You are the vendor, unless you have now passed that role on to someone else?


You've finished implementing C99 then? I'm surprised you did not
announce it.


He is not a troll. I don't think you try to troll either, but you
certainly fly off the handle and in your zeal to defend yourself
against anything you perceive as an attack start saying things which
are demonstrably false.

And as if by magic Heathfield's lacky appears to take a free kick at
Jacob. Absolutely shameful. Hey "Flash no nym", why not list all these
compiler "issues" you have from the earlier thread?

<deafening silence>

 

[jacob navia]

You vend software licenses. That makes you a vendor. That you also
provide the same software for free for non-commercial uses does not
invalidate the use of the term "vendor".

You also sell stuff to earn your life. As everyone does.

This makes you also a vendor.

What makes me mad is that this work that I have personally developed and
financed and that costs like 500 euros/month to keep going in server
costs and associated expenses makes me a "vendor".


You do not give a dam about that of course, it is my money that is
financing lcc-win as a free service, not yours!!

So it now has a fully conforming mode in which it diagnosis all uses of
any extensions for which C99 requires a diagnostic?

No, for instance it will accept // comments as you and your stupid
"regulars club" have pointed out.

Anbd yes I WILL NOT FIX THAT since it isn't broken anyway!

I assume, also, that you've fixed the va_list problem that you described
on 2009-02-03 in this newsgroup?

And obviously since I work for free, I have to work according to your plans?

I do whatever I want with my free time. And I do not know what va_list
problem you are talking about. It was a minor problem with a declaration
that I fixed. A declaration like "long long unsigned int". That was
parsed as unsigned int and that is fixed. Now is parsed as
unsigned long long.

 

[jacob navia]

You are the vendor, unless you have now passed that role on to someone
else?

Look. If you want to get a technical detail of gcc you should buy a
contract of software maintenance with gcc with RedHat for 25 000
dollars/Year.

Obviously when GNU sells consulting for exhorbitant prices that's OK.
When I sell a licence it is obviously a bad thing.

You also sell something to earn your life, either your time as
programmer or a product or whatever. You are ALSO a "vendor" then.

 

[Joachim Schmitz]

jacob navia said:

I found this claim interesting, since I wasn't aware that you had
previously claimed conformance. I checked your Web site:

http://www.q-software-solutions.de/products/lcc-win32/objectives.shtml

According to that page, "Lcc-win32 implements the full ANSI-C
standard".

If that is true, then I certainly owe you an apology. Is it true?

Why don't you just take his word on this?

Bye, Jojo

 

[Guest]

Look. If you want to get a technical detail of gcc you should buy a
contract of software maintenance with gcc with RedHat for 25 000
dollars/Year.

I thought we were talking about lcc?

Obviously when GNU sells consulting for exhorbitant prices that's OK.

I'm not sure that GNU and Redhat are synonomous terms but you
may know better

When I sell a licence it is obviously a bad thing.

not in my book. Nor, I think, to many other of the posters to this
thread.
People are simply saying that you should say that your compiler is
free
*for non-commercial use*, if those are the terms on which it is
offered.

You also sell something to earn your life, either your time as
programmer or a product or whatever. You are ALSO a "vendor" then.

yes but not the vendor of LCC.

I'm impressed with anyone that implements a full compiler and if you
wish
to make money from this then I wish you the best of luck!

 

[Joachim Schmitz]

Joachim Schmitz said:


In a word - experience.

?? he claims ANSI-C conformanance on his website, so why do you ask whether
he really claims that? You saw it yourself, so why the doubts?

Or do you think he claims wrongly? In that case just go ahead and prove it
wrong.

Bye, Jojo

 

[Antoninus Twink]

(It does, however, mean that your code doesn't conform to C90. That
isn't a problem if you're not claiming C90 conformance, which you
don't appear to be.)

You really are a snake in the grass, Heathfield.

You seem to have given up your full-frontal attacks (saying directly
that "lcc-win is not a C compiler" etc.) and instead you've turned to
the sly and underhand technique of nasty insinutation - you know
perfectly well that people will read between the lines and find the same
old lie ("not a C compiler"), but you dress it up with a veneer of
moderation and politeness.

I'm not sure I've encountered anyone so dishonest and so crafty in the
whole of my life.

 

[Joachim Schmitz]

Joachim Schmitz said:


Because he himself seems to be in some doubt.

From elsethread:
James Kuyper asked: "So it now has a fully conforming mode in which
it diagnosis all uses of any extensions for which C99 requires a
diagnostic?"

and Jacob Navia replied: "No, for instance it will accept //
comments as you and your stupid "regulars club" have pointed out."

So here he denies C99 conformance, citing conforming behaviour to
support the denial. But on his Web site he claims conformance.



Before I think about whether I'd be prepared to spend the time
proving him wrong, it would be nice to know what he is actually
claiming.

You read on his website what he's claiming, so I don't see your point

Bye, Jojo