flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > High Level Languages > Most recommended freeware C/C++ compiler?

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
OzzY



Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Posts: 1029
Location: Everywhere
OzzY
I'm using Visual C++ Express now just to get used to Visual Studio.

My programs are dependending on 2 DLLS that are not standard that I'm used to see when I use APIs: MSVCP80.DLL and MSVCR80.DLL.
What are these DLLs? Do I have to distribute them?

I though my programs would be standand-alone just depending on system DLLs. Rolling Eyes

Please help me, because I don't know MS tools well. I'm just used to FASM (full controll) and Mingw which generates really stand-alone EXEs.

Thanks!
Post 13 Nov 2006, 02:56
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Maverick



Joined: 07 Aug 2006
Posts: 251
Location: Citizen of the Universe
Maverick
Simply link with LIBCMT.LIB, not MSVCRT.LIB.

The details of how to do it depend on how you configured your environment. I do it in a maximally non-standard way, and for me it means to do it in the linker. For normal usage of VS, it probably means to use *in the compiler* the option /MT instead of /MD (which I think is the default). Both switchs are for Release, and become /MTd and MDd in case of Debug.

I hope that has been useful.
Post 13 Nov 2006, 04:43
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Filter



Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 67
Filter
My Opinion...
Borland C++ is a little outdated but can still be used.

Visual C++ Express is good and fairly easy to use for beginners and also allows RAD programming.

Watcom C++ has some great potential but the IDE is showing it's age.

DJGPP is great for DOS programming just remember to strip the exes. Also remember to get RHIDE.

MinGW is not maintained as much as I would like to see. Visual Studio is much preferred for this reason.

Pelles C looks great but I haven't had time to spend with it to get familiar enough with it. I'm more of a C++ programmer anyway.

If you just want Visual Studio command line then just download the Windows Vista/XP Windows SDK. It has all the compilers for all three platforms that are supported. It even includes masm for 32 and 64 bit. Another thing it includes is vcbuild that will build and/or update vc++ projects.

I prefer Visual Studio for all Windows programming because 90% of everything written for Windows will compile with it, even open source applications tend to have a Visual C++ project file.
Post 13 Nov 2006, 05:37
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Maverick



Joined: 07 Aug 2006
Posts: 251
Location: Citizen of the Universe
Maverick
Filter wrote:
If you just want Visual Studio command line then just download the Windows Vista/XP Windows SDK. It has all the compilers for all three platforms that are supported. It even includes masm for 32 and 64 bit.

Interesting. Please, could you tell the version string of the compiler? E.g.:
Code:
Microsoft (R) 32-bit C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 15.00.10905 for 80x86
    

_________________
Greets,
Fabio
Post 13 Nov 2006, 06:14
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
OzzY



Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Posts: 1029
Location: Everywhere
OzzY
Quote:
If you just want Visual Studio command line then just download the Windows Vista/XP Windows SDK. It has all the compilers for all three platforms that are supported. It even includes masm for 32 and 64 bit. Another thing it includes is vcbuild that will build and/or update vc++ projects.


Interesting. I didn't know that. If I knew it before I would not install the Express edition and just use PSDK+Code Blocks.

Because the VC++ Express IDE (or any .NET program) run too slow here that it's not possible to use. A RAD environment just become a SAD (Slow Application Development Laughing).
Is it just my computer or does it happen with someone else here?

PS: I can't find cl.exe in PSDK\bin folder. I just find a Win64 folder which cl.exe for 64-bit machines. Do I have to select something from the PSDK installation?
(Microsoft Platform SDK for Windows Server 2003 R2 version here)
Post 13 Nov 2006, 12:59
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Maverick



Joined: 07 Aug 2006
Posts: 251
Location: Citizen of the Universe
Maverick
OzzY Osbourne wrote:
Because the VC++ Express IDE (or any .NET program) run too slow here that it's not possible to use. A RAD environment just become a SAD (Slow Application Development Laughing).
Is it just my computer or does it happen with someone else here?

Is it only me or whenever I hear Garbage Collection outside of kids' BASIC circles I feel *VERY* bad in the stomach?
Now if you take a look at that Java-rip .NET bytecode, you'll see that it's based on ideas that were obsolete already 30 years ago (when will do people realize that stack based machines, although the Forth language is truly lovely, are hopelessly less efficient than register based ones?). Oh yeah, the .NET JIT optimizes the code anyway.. and we all see the results. Very Happy

Quote:
PS: I can't find cl.exe in PSDK\bin folder. I just find a Win64 folder which cl.exe for 64-bit machines. Do I have to select something from the PSDK installation?
Just a guess: could it be that you download the SDK for Win64? I doubt++ that contains any support for Win32.

_________________
Greets,
Fabio
Post 13 Nov 2006, 13:39
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
OzzY



Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Posts: 1029
Location: Everywhere
OzzY
Nope. I downloaded the x86 one.
But I think they just begun to add x86 compilers from the Vista SDK.
Mine is 2003 SDK.
Which one do you have?

Ahh... I don't see why people keep using .NET. They are keeping that crappy thing alive.
I must say that I TRIED to use it. But it goes beyond my patience. I can't wait 15 seconds (on the best case) to see a splash screen of Visual Studio and wait more 40 seconds to wait it create the project. Then I drop a button and wait more 12 seconds with the "clock" mouse pointer showing that it's loading and the CPU at 100% usage.
This just sux dude... Visual Studio was great 'till the 6 version. Now it's unusable.
I have an Athlon XP 2000+, 256MB RAM. Is my machine too old for programming? Because I've begun to think I need a machine for High-CPU-usage-3D-realtime-online games just to do simple programming.
Post 13 Nov 2006, 17:05
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Ehtyar



Joined: 26 Sep 2006
Posts: 51
Ehtyar
Aaaaaaaaaamen to that.

Ehtyar.
Post 13 Nov 2006, 19:49
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
Ozzy: use it from command link. just CL.EXE and LINK.EXE
Post 13 Nov 2006, 21:13
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
Maverick



Joined: 07 Aug 2006
Posts: 251
Location: Citizen of the Universe
Maverick
Yeah, VC got improved a lot after VC6, BUT YOU MUST use it as real men, i.e. command line. Very Happy (maybe, since you're a real man, don't even use a keyboard Very Happy ).

Also, using it as command line and with no stupid headers, it fits in the 0.2% of my USB Pen, which is nice. Smile
Post 14 Nov 2006, 06:55
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
OzzY



Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Posts: 1029
Location: Everywhere
OzzY
Yes... using from command line is a lot faster.
Just using an editor like vim and calling cl from command line and everything is alright.

I couldn't find VC++ for x86 at PSDK. The only option to get command line tools only is by installing VC++ Express without the IDE.
Although I'm thinking about switching to Digital Mars compiler as it's not a huge package like VC++ and seems to compile C++ more optimized than GCC.

Plus, I'm testing the D language which seems nice with features of C# without targeting the stupid .NET.
Have anyone tried it for real project (at least a small one)?

I like to use vim as editor + GCC or VC++ as compiler (GCC gave me less problems) + FLTK (Fast Light Toolkit - a nice cross-platform GUI library) + FASM (for optimizing code / accessing low-level / writting code that works better in ASM than C).
Post 14 Nov 2006, 14:50
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Vortex



Joined: 17 Jun 2003
Posts: 318
Vortex
OzzY,

I guess you missed my posting here :

http://board.flatassembler.net/topic.php?p=47686#47686

_________________
Code it... That's all...
Post 14 Nov 2006, 17:34
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2341
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo
Here's some stuff I noticed while recently browsing comp.os.msdos.djgpp on Google Groups:


Last edited by rugxulo on 15 Dec 2006, 20:05; edited 1 time in total
Post 15 Nov 2006, 03:42
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Filter



Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 67
Filter
Maverick, CL.exe version number in Windows SDK is 14.00.50727.42 the same as Visual Studio 2005. Where did you get version 15? Is it beta?

Ozzy, your using Windows 2003/XP/2000 SDK you need the Vista/XP/2003 SDK to get the 32-bit cl.exe. They didn't include it in the earlier release of the SDK but don't ask me why because it doesn't make sense to me.

Everybody rips .NET but you can fit a "Hello World" console application into a very small 16MB of physical memory. Why do you need that silly assembler that everybody keeps talking about with memory overhead so low in .NET?

OK I was just kidding. .NET is a memory hog.

I'm the type of guy that believes that everything has a purpose and anything without a purpose isn't worth using. .NET isn't so bad IMO because I find good uses for it. I will admit that I have 2 GB of memory so it doesn't bother me to use 15 - 30 MB for a simple application. I try to stay away from VB as much as I can help it though.

I use assembler not because I think it beats all else but rather because it has good uses. I tried forever to get a native windows applications that will run before Win32 loads. I tried the Win2k3 DDK and it wouldn't compile the applications that I was trying to write. I found out that I can do what I want in FASM.
Post 15 Nov 2006, 04:30
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
Which version of the compiler is included in the SDK? Full optimization, or the retarded little brother?
Post 15 Nov 2006, 08:57
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Maverick



Joined: 07 Aug 2006
Posts: 251
Location: Citizen of the Universe
Maverick
Filter wrote:
Maverick, CL.exe version number in Windows SDK is 14.00.50727.42 the same as Visual Studio 2005.
Thank you. BTW: there's SP1 beta which is 14.00.50727.383 (you've to sign with MS to download it).
Quote:
Where did you get version 15? Is it beta?
It is beta. I'm afraid you'll have to sign with MS to get it too, or perhaps you may want to try to eMule for VS2005 SP1 beta and/or Orcas beta. That may find them or not, I don't know, haven't tried.

_________________
Greets,
Fabio
Post 15 Nov 2006, 09:08
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Filter



Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 67
Filter
f0dder wrote:
Which version of the compiler is included in the SDK? Full optimization, or the retarded little brother?


Doesn't seem to be any different than the one that is included with Visual Studio. I haven't done an MD5 hash or anything like that to compare but it seems that way.
Post 17 Nov 2006, 01:51
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Filter



Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 67
Filter
Maverick wrote:
Filter wrote:
Maverick, CL.exe version number in Windows SDK is 14.00.50727.42 the same as Visual Studio 2005.
Thank you. BTW: there's SP1 beta which is 14.00.50727.383 (you've to sign with MS to download it).
Quote:
Where did you get version 15? Is it beta?
It is beta. I'm afraid you'll have to sign with MS to get it too, or perhaps you may want to try to eMule for VS2005 SP1 beta and/or Orcas beta. That may find them or not, I don't know, haven't tried.


I don't like using beta software. The stuff I write should be usable on all systems without problems that beta might introduce. I will wait for VS 2005 SP1 to go gold.

The Visual Studio Express betas were pretty rock solid but I didn't write anything of importance with them.
Post 17 Nov 2006, 01:53
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Maverick



Joined: 07 Aug 2006
Posts: 251
Location: Citizen of the Universe
Maverick
At least compiler-wise, Orcas beta is less buggy than VS 2005. Trust me that I'm an expert when it comes to find compiler bugs. Very Happy

I use the less buggy compiler version that I can use, and that's not even VS 2005 SP1 beta right now (and I was told by Microsoft that some bugs I reported won't be corrected neither in the SP1 release, due to time constraints, but will go to the next major revision instead. Please note that I'm not taking about new features' suggestions, but about code generation bug fixes! although quite tricky ones which maybe affect only me and 10 other people in the world Very Happy ).

Yes, it "looks" like Microsoft privileges to tune the Orcas codebase rather than the VS2005 SP1 one.

I don't know about IDE and such, I only use the command line compiler, but for what I grasped the Orcas beta IDE is still the VS2005 one anyway, extended someway.

VC2005 (even SP1 beta) is so buggy that it will fail to compile correctly even something like this (link to MS Connect bug report I made, you probably need to have access to open the page):

https://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/ViewFeedback.aspx?FeedbackID=217237

Fails even on Phoenix RDK. Works ok only in Orcas beta.

Said that, use whatever you wish.. but I have to suggest you to use Orcas beta anyway. Wink
Post 17 Nov 2006, 06:26
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
OzzY



Joined: 19 Sep 2003
Posts: 1029
Location: Everywhere
OzzY
I just tried TinyCC, and for my surprise it looks like very complete C compiler. And it's very small package! Shocked
It makes a nice portable programming environment: TinyCC + FASM + some tiny editor (even FASMW itself). Very Happy
You can carry it on a floopy or USB device and do some programming fun when you are at some computer that doesn't have a compiler.

Also, it's worth to check the online programming IDE which works from the browser: http://www.codeide.com/ Laughing

PS: Is TinyCC still developed?
Post 27 Mar 2007, 14:01
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.