Free Microsoft Visual C++ Toolkit 2003

[v4vijayakumar]

FYI.

Microsoft Visual C++ Toolkit 2003

The Microsoft Visual C++ Toolkit 2003 includes the core tools
developers need to compile and link C++-based applications for Windows
and the .NET Common Language Runtime:

Microsoft C/C++ Optimizing Compiler and Linker. These are the same
compiler and linker that ship with Visual Studio .NET 2003
Professional!

C Runtime Library and the C++ Standard Library, including the Standard
Template Library. These are the same static-link libraries included
with Visual Studio.

Microsoft .NET Framework Common Language Runtime. Visual C++ can
optionally build applications that target the Common Language Runtime
(CLR).

Sample code. The toolkit includes four samples designed to showcase
the powerful new features of the 2003 version, including new
optimization capabilities, features to improve code-security and
robustness, enhanced ISO C++ standards support, and the ability to use
the .NET Framework library and target the CLR.

[Download the Visual C++ Toolkit 2003:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...9D-40BB-49FD-9CB0-4BFA122FA91B&displaylang=en]

[From http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/vctoolkit2003/]

 

[Flash Gordon]

FYI.

Microsoft Visual C++ Toolkit 2003

<snip>

Now tell me why it should be of interest? Apart from the fact that most
of my current development is for Linux and AIX, these groups are not for
specific tools but the language itself.

In any case, we (on comp.lang.c) already have a far longer list of
freely available compilers at http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/C_Compilers which
will show that you are advertising an old version rather than the
current version.

 

[arun]

FYI.

Microsoft Visual C++ Toolkit 2003

The Microsoft Visual C++ Toolkit 2003 includes the core tools
developers need to compile and link C++-based applications for Windows
and the .NET Common Language Runtime:

Microsoft C/C++ Optimizing Compiler and Linker. These are the same
compiler and linker that ship with Visual Studio .NET 2003
Professional!

C Runtime Library and the C++ Standard Library, including the Standard
Template Library. These are the same static-link libraries included
with Visual Studio.

Microsoft .NET Framework Common Language Runtime. Visual C++ can
optionally build applications that target the Common Language Runtime
(CLR).

Sample code. The toolkit includes four samples designed to showcase
the powerful new features of the 2003 version, including new
optimization capabilities, features to improve code-security and
robustness, enhanced ISO C++ standards support, and the ability to use
the .NET Framework library and target the CLR.

[Download the Visual C++ Toolkit 2003:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...9D-40BB-49FD-9CB0-4BFA122FA91B&displaylang=en]

[From http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/vctoolkit2003/]

I think you have come to the wrong place.
This group is meant for "Discussion about C" as the group description
says.
Why are you posting the advertisement for such tools in this group ?

 

[Gernot Frisch]

Now tell me why it should be of interest? Apart from the fact that
most
of my current development is for Linux and AIX, these groups are not
for specific tools but the language itself.

I _am_ interested, since I finally can replace my VC7.1 GERMAN
compiler with an ENGLISH one!!! Now I can understand my error messages
better, because a translation made things worse (Siemens Syndrome).

-Gernot

 

[Vladimir Oka]

I _am_ interested, since I finally can replace my VC7.1 GERMAN
compiler with an ENGLISH one!!! Now I can understand my error messages
better, because a translation made things worse (Siemens Syndrome).

I'm happy for you.

That, however, still does not make c.l.c a place to exchange this sort
fo information.

 

[Gernot Frisch]

I'm happy for you.

That, however, still does not make c.l.c a place to exchange this
sort
fo information.

OK. You're right.
</Thread>

 

[John Carson]

I _am_ interested, since I finally can replace my VC7.1 GERMAN
compiler with an ENGLISH one!!! Now I can understand my error messages
better, because a translation made things worse (Siemens Syndrome).

-Gernot

Get the current version. Then you don't have to suffer a command line
interface.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/visualc/default.aspx

 

[CBFalconer]

Get the current version. Then you don't have to suffer a command
line interface.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/visualc/default.aspx

Why do you want him to suffer from a GUI interface? How cruel.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>

 

[John Carson]

Why do you want him to suffer from a GUI interface? How cruel.

People with normal emotional adjustment (and people interested in maximizing
productivity) prefer GUI interfaces.

This of course raises the question of the best way to respond to people with
abnormal emotional adjustment who prefer command line interfaces. This takes
us into ethical deep waters. I am reminded of a discussion among some
friends a while ago about whether there should be intervention in a
(hypothetical) relationship in which one partner likes to be beaten. One
view was that the person's preferences should be respected. Another was that
those preferences were likely the result of mistreatment in the past and
thus to treat the preferences as sacrosanct would just perpetuate a pattern
of abuse.

Opinions differ on this. I'm inclined to be interventionist myself --- while
acknowledging that these matters need to be handled with sensitivity.

 

[jjf]

People with normal emotional adjustment (and people interested in maximizing
productivity) prefer GUI interfaces.

You make yourself look ridiculous.

 

[John Carson]

You make yourself look ridiculous.

You have no sense of humour.

 

[Chris Hills]

FYI.

Microsoft Visual C++ Toolkit 2003

The Microsoft Visual C++ Toolkit 2003 includes the core tools
developers need to compile and link C++-based applications for Windows
and the .NET Common Language Runtime:

Microsoft C/C++ Optimizing Compiler and Linker. These are the same
compiler and linker that ship with Visual Studio .NET 2003
Professional!

C Runtime Library and the C++ Standard Library, including the Standard
Template Library. These are the same static-link libraries included
with Visual Studio.

Microsoft .NET Framework Common Language Runtime. Visual C++ can
optionally build applications that target the Common Language Runtime
(CLR).

Sample code. The toolkit includes four samples designed to showcase
the powerful new features of the 2003 version, including new
optimization capabilities, features to improve code-security and
robustness, enhanced ISO C++ standards support, and the ability to use
the .NET Framework library and target the CLR.

[Download the Visual C++ Toolkit 2003:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=272BE09D-40BB-49FD- 9CB0-4BFA122FA91B&displaylang=en]

[From http://msdn.microsoft.com/visualc/vctoolkit2003/]

I think you have come to the wrong place.
This group is meant for "Discussion about C" as the group description
says.
Why are you posting the advertisement for such tools in this group ?

Because it is useful for those who actually use C on a windows platform.
Probably a lot of people who read this NG unless you are going to ban
discussion of ALL compilers. Mind you the MS compilers are now some of
the most ISO C compliant on the planet and soon may be the only
compliant ones.

 

[Chris Hills]

I'm happy for you.

That, however, still does not make c.l.c a place to exchange this sort
fo information.

SO you say but more people seem to have respond positively to this
thread. Unless of course C.l.c is a place where people only talk about C
and not actually use it....

A free [commercial] compiler that will run on the hardware a majority of
readers of this NG have is always useful information. I downloaded a
copy of the free MS compiler myself just to play with though all my work
is in the embedded area.

I make the distinction of a free commercial compiler as you usually have
to buy it so an announcement that it is now available for free is always
of interest. As I said I am not going to buy an MS compiler as I don't
develop for a PC but a free one is of interest as several other people
here have said. SO this is clearly the place to post the information.

 

[Erik de Castro Lopo]

Because it is useful for those who actually use C on a windows platform.
Probably a lot of people who read this NG unless you are going to ban
discussion of ALL compilers. Mind you the MS compilers are now some of
the most ISO C compliant on the planet and soon may be the only
compliant ones.

Really? What about the 1999 ISO C standard? Is this 2003 compiler
complient?

Erik
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Erik de Castro Lopo
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
"We have fifty million Muslims in Europe. There are signs that Allah
will grant Islam victory in Europe - without swords, without guns,
without conquests. The fifty million Muslims of Europe will turn it
into a Muslim continent within a few decades."
-- Libyan leader Mu'ammar Al-Qadhafi
http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1121

 

[Chris Hills]

Really? What about the 1999 ISO C standard? Is this 2003 compiler
complient?

Erik

Well I don't know about the 2003 version but when I queried the same
thing on another (standards) forum a while back I was told MS are now
very compliant from some of the senior standards people.It surprised me
too.

Note this was on a more authoritative C NG than this one where
discussions about specific compilers, specific implementations and how
they differ to standard C are comonplace.


Also given that MS wrote the TR's one for the C and the C++ libraries
based on their libraries, virtually wrote the C#, CLI and C++/CLI
ECMA/ISO standards I am not sure if you would say that MS is standards
compliant or that the standards are now becoming MS compliant... :-(

There were some warning bells about this but they were ignored. Now the
very people who ignored the warnings are piously leading the charge
against. A case of "when they came for the ABC Iwas not an ABC and said
nothing....."

 

[P.J. Plauger]

Well I don't know about the 2003 version but when I queried the same
thing on another (standards) forum a while back I was told MS are now
very compliant from some of the senior standards people.It surprised me
too.

Note this was on a more authoritative C NG than this one where
discussions about specific compilers, specific implementations and how
they differ to standard C are comonplace.

You must be confusing C and C++ here. Microsoft has offered reasonably
good compliance to C95 for over a decade, but they have done very little
to pursue C99 compliance. OTOH, the past few years have seen great
improvement in C++ (1999) compliance, first with VC++ V7.1 and now with
V8.0. The major missing feature is separate compilation of templates,
which so far is provided only by Edison Design Group.

Also given that MS wrote the TR's one for the C and the C++ libraries
based on their libraries,

Uh, they've so far offered the basic technology for *one* TR in C --
originally called Secure C and now Bounded C (or something like that).
That TR is still in the works, though nearing completion. And it is
*not* a rubber stamp of the product Microsoft is now widely shipping.
There are only four approved TRs, two in C and two in C++; Microsoft
had no significant involvement in any of these. Your garbled statement
is at best misleading.

virtually wrote the C#, CLI and C++/CLI
ECMA/ISO standards I am not sure if you would say that MS is standards
compliant or that the standards are now becoming MS compliant... :-(

That's an accurate appraisal of these particular standards, but have
nothing to do with Standard C or Standard C++.

There were some warning bells about this but they were ignored. Now the
very people who ignored the warnings are piously leading the charge
against. A case of "when they came for the ABC Iwas not an ABC and said
nothing....."

And the warning was...? It's worth observing that the non-normative C TR
now in the works, plus the ECMA standards cited above, all describe
*working products that have been shipped to millions of customers.*
By contrast, both the C99 and C++ Standards have been widely, and
properly, criticized for codifying nonexistent practice -- which explains
why 100 per cent conformance to either standard is rare. So who are the
bad citizens in this community?

P.J. Plauger
Dinkumware, Ltd.
http://www.dinkumware.com

 

[Michael Mair]

Well I don't know about the 2003 version but when I queried the same
thing on another (standards) forum a while back I was told MS are now
very compliant from some of the senior standards people.It surprised me
too.

Note this was on a more authoritative C NG than this one where
discussions about specific compilers, specific implementations and how
they differ to standard C are comonplace.

In 2003, MS said that they were not C99 compliant due to the short
time they had to implement VS2003.
For the VS2005 C run-time library, you can still find the
"This version of Visual C++ is not conformant with the C99 standard."
and even the more basic (and generally considered useful) stuff is
missing.
Example: Nobody would have taken amiss now having "snprintf()"...
Instead you have _snprintf()/sprintf_s()/_scprintf() which behave
almost, but not quite, entirely unlike snprintf()...
AFAIK, only long long and variadic macros have made it into VS2005
(along with the existing // comments and __restrict instead of
restrict).

When evaluating the VS2005beta, I got the impression that the MS
people see language standards not perpetrated by MS just as
"feature lists".

Also given that MS wrote the TR's one for the C and the C++ libraries
based on their libraries, virtually wrote the C#, CLI and C++/CLI
ECMA/ISO standards I am not sure if you would say that MS is standards
compliant or that the standards are now becoming MS compliant... :-(

Well, the safe string handling functions TR IMO is a load of cr..
and has not much to do with sensible replacements. Having heard of
other MS proposals, this does not let me look optimistic into the
future.

There were some warning bells about this but they were ignored. Now the
very people who ignored the warnings are piously leading the charge
against. A case of "when they came for the ABC Iwas not an ABC and said
nothing....."

How surprisingly unsurprising :-(


Cheers
Michael

 

[Chris Hills]

In 2003, MS said that they were not C99 compliant due to the short
time they had to implement VS2003.
For the VS2005 C run-time library, you can still find the
"This version of Visual C++ is not conformant with the C99 standard."
and even the more basic (and generally considered useful) stuff is
missing.
Example: Nobody would have taken amiss now having "snprintf()"...
Instead you have _snprintf()/sprintf_s()/_scprintf() which behave
almost, but not quite, entirely unlike snprintf()...
AFAIK, only long long and variadic macros have made it into VS2005
(along with the existing // comments and __restrict instead of
restrict).

When evaluating the VS2005beta, I got the impression that the MS
people see language standards not perpetrated by MS just as
"feature lists".

I would tend to agree with you. In the embedded world EC++ and MISRA C
(based on C95) are the standards used.

If MS bases it's stuff on ECMA standards, which it has a lot of input
to, it rather renders the current C and C++ standards some what
redundant.

Where next for ISO C and C++? Perhaps some retracing of steps back a
bit and re starting with the previous versions of the ISO standards?
Otherwise it could be obscurity as with ISO BASIC.

Well, the safe string handling functions TR IMO is a load of cr..

Many have said similar.

and has not much to do with sensible replacements. Having heard of
other MS proposals, this does not let me look optimistic into the
future.

Arguments abound on al sides over this. From conspiracy theories
downwards

How surprisingly unsurprising :-(

It will always be thus. Actually a couple who are now complaining the
loudest were also actively supportive the first time round.

The net result is for PC work MS will be the standard.
For embedded work EC++ and MISRA C
What predominates for other areas?

 

[Chris Hills]

Chris Hills schrieb:
In 2003, MS said that they were not C99 compliant due to the short
time they had to implement VS2003.
For the VS2005 C run-time library, you can still find the
"This version of Visual C++ is not conformant with the C99 standard."
and even the more basic (and generally considered useful) stuff is
missing.

This is an interesting point. MS has people directly or indirectly on
the ISO C panels and would have known probably in 1998 what was in C99.
Just as K&R2 is dated 1989 and covers ANSI C & C90

However they say that it there was not enough time to implement C99. Now
you may take this as political spin because they did not want to
implement C99 but it does give an indication on the speed of
implementing new things into compilers.

When evaluating the VS2005beta, I got the impression that the MS
people see language standards not perpetrated by MS just as
"feature lists".

AFAIK there are virtually no C99 compliant compilers 7 years down the
line. This is why MISRA-C:2004 suck with C90/5.

We are taking a view on weather to support C99 in MISRA-C:20**... Not
for a few years yet though we need to stabilise C2 and get feed back

 

[Chris Hills]

You must be confusing C and C++ here. Microsoft has offered reasonably
good compliance to C95 for over a decade, but they have done very little
to pursue C99 compliance.

I thought they had got a lot better with C99 compliance of late? As they
have the TR on the C library I thought they were doing something in C.

OTOH, the past few years have seen great
improvement in C++ (1999) compliance, first with VC++ V7.1 and now with
V8.0. The major missing feature is separate compilation of templates,
which so far is provided only by Edison Design Group.


Uh, they've so far offered the basic technology for *one* TR in C --
originally called Secure C and now Bounded C (or something like that).

Secure, safer, safe, bounded... Any bets on the final name?

That TR is still in the works, though nearing completion. And it is
*not* a rubber stamp of the product Microsoft is now widely shipping.
There are only four approved TRs, two in C and two in C++; Microsoft
had no significant involvement in any of these. Your garbled statement
is at best misleading.

I thought the people involved were also closely involved with MS? I also
recall being present when MS gave a presentation on the Secure C (as it
was then) library proposal. I have been looking for a copy of that
presentation recently. It was either at Reading or Oxford.

That's an accurate appraisal of these particular standards, but have
nothing to do with Standard C or Standard C++.

Maybe not C but I refer you to the arguments on C++/CLI and C++ that are
currently raging all over. Lets not get into that one. I have seen the
many hundreds of column inches on that debate.

And the warning was...?

That with MS having a major role in ECMA and the standards mentioned
above being fasted tracked though ISO along with the C and C++ library
TR's that MS was "bending the standards to fit MS." which would not
help people on other platforms or not using MS tools.

It's worth observing that the non-normative C TR
now in the works, plus the ECMA standards cited above, all describe
*working products that have been shipped to millions of customers.*

This can not be disputed. It think the worry is that ISO standards are
describing particular commercial products rather than a generic
standard.

IE it gives MS & Windows an advantage over everyone else. You know well
there are lots of arguments about that all over the place. However.....

By contrast, both the C99 and C++ Standards have been widely, and
properly, criticized for codifying nonexistent practice --

BTW I joined the BSI C panel in late 99 AFTER it was Issued so it ain't
my fault

which explains
why 100 per cent conformance to either standard is rare. So who are the
bad citizens in this community?

Good point.

In another place we have discussed the fact that there are MANY far
better standards, methods and languages that were used once or twice and
are now rotting in some University completely unused and forgotten save
as papers at a conference long ago because they just did not run in
industry.

The question is do you go for technical/academic perfection or add
exotic new features that someone thinks are "essential" (or sexy) rather
than something that is actually going to be used in industry? This is a
difficult debate. I favour incremental improvements on current
industrial practice. Usually by looking at what the majority are
implementing. IE the industry will innovate then ISO can standardise it.

I think the fear is that this is what ONE compiler vendor is
implementing not what most are implementing.

As for who is the Good Citizen.... MS can not qualify as it is well
known to be the Spawn of Satan and Controlling The World on behalf of
the Freemasons, Jews, Jesuits, Catholics and David Ike's Lizards from
Mars etc.


As it is I think the OP was fine to post on c.l.c that a commercial
C/C++ compiler that is a market leader in now available for free.