I wanted to know what is the current standard C compiler being used by companies. I know of the following compilers and don't understand which one to use for learning purposes.
Turbo C
Borland C
GCC
DJGPP
I am learning C right now and referring to the K&R book.
Can anyone please guide me to which compiler to use?
GCC would be the standard, best supported and fastest open source compiler used by most (sane) people.
GCC is going to have the best support of the choices you've listed for the simple reason that it comes standard in GNU and is the target of Linux. It's very unlikely any organization would use the other three beyond possibly supporting some horrible legacy application.
Other C compilers you might look into include:
Clang: an up-and-comer, particularly for BSD and Mac OS X
Visual Studio Express: for Windows programming
Intel Compiler Suite: very high performance; costs money
Portland Group: another high-performance commercial compiler; used typically for supercomputers
PathScale: yet another commercial high-performance compiler
If you are starting to learn the language, Clang's much better diagnostics will help you.
To make your (job) applications tools section look better, GCC (and maybe Visual Studio) are good to have knowledge of.
GCC (which I use in those rare moments when I use C) or ICC (Intel C Compiler), though ICC is known for making code that runs slowly on AMD processors.
Depends on the platform you are using and planning to learn on or will do future development.
On Windows you can use Visual Studio Express C++ which supports standard ANSI C usage. Option two is Cygwin which is a library and tool set that replicates much of what you would use on Linux or other Unix style OS's ( it uses GCC ).
On the Mac you would want XCode which is the standard development tools including C compiler ( based on GCC ).
On many Unix type systems it will be cc or gcc depending on the OS vendor.
If you have the money some of the paid compilers like the Intel one are exceptional but likely won't be much help in learning the programming craft at this point.
If you use LINUX operating system GCC is the best compiler. You can separate each compiler steps like preprocessing , assembler , linker separately in GCC compiler using some command line options. You can analyze step by step of compilation of your C source code easily. I suggest to go for "GNU C COMPILER(GCC)". You can use "CC" command, its nothing but a symbolic link to GCC.
I can recommend OpenWatcom which was once used to develop Netware. Only supports IA-32 but does it well. Contains a basic IDE and a basic but competent profiler. Something for the real programmer :)
Then there is Pelles C which supports x86-64. It has a basic VC-like IDE but few support programs.
I like these two because the compilers are competent and you get going quickly without having to pore over manuals and wondering what the options mean.
If you are on windows use MinGW or like most have suggested ggo with GCC on Linux
Though ofcourse since it's commandline so you might find Dev-C++ and/or Code::Blocks, Eclipse CDT etc which are IDEs useful for you to make your job simpler.
There is no standard and each compiler and it's libraries differ from one another.
gcc is best and free. GO FOR GNU!
Related
So Microsoft's MSVC from Visual Studio 2019 doesn't support C99 (or later), but it does support C89 and some constructs from C99.
Is there an option for the GCC C-compiler (not C++-compiler) to use a standard that would guarantee that the source can also be compiled with MSVC? If it compiles with -std=iso9899:199409 -pedantic under GCC, can MSVC compile it?
Is there a reason you need to care if MSVC can compile it? GCC ("mingw") can target Windows PE object files with ABI compatible with MSVC, so users could build with that, or you could even ship them binary object files/library files to use so they don't need any tooling.
Policing your code base for compatibility with a known-broken/intentionally-broken compiler does not seem like a worthwhile activity unless you actually have reason to want to use that compiler, rather than just allowing users of that compiler to link with your code.
Pretty much the only way to you can ensure it builds with MSVC and GCC is to build the code with both toolsets. In addition to language constructs, there are a number of differences in the handling of compiler-defined preprocessor symbols, differences in what the preprocessor can handle, etc.
Personally I've been doing a lot of work getting C++ code to build with MSVC and Clang, and I've hit many minor issues that have to be fixed to get things to build with both toolsets. The C/C++ language standards help make the code portable, but you still have to run it through more than one toolset to get it to build 'cleanly'.
If you want your code to be robustly portable you also should build it for multiple architectures.
For my GitHub libraries, I build for ARM, ARM64, x86, x64 on MSVC, VS 2015 Update 3/VS 2017/VS 2019, targeting Win32 desktop, UWP, and Xbox One. I also build with clang for Windows for x86 and x64. Each one finds slightly different issues, but the end result is a lot more portable.
I have been doing a lot reading lately about how glibc functions wrap system calls in linux. I am wondering however about the relationship between glibc and the GNU C Compiler.
Lets say for example I wanted to write my own C Standard implementation and write a new library called "newglibc" and I change things just slightly. Like for example I take more checks and actions before and after the system calls. Would I have to write a new compiler? Or would I be able to use the same GNU gcc compiler?
If the compiler is completely separate from the library, then would someone be able to, THEORETICALLY, use the gcc on windows system if they could turn it into a .exe and provide the standard C library that windows provides?
Thank you
The Linux kernel, the GNU C Library ("glibc"), and the GNU Compiler Collection (gcc) are three separate development projects. They are often used all together, but they don't have to be. The ones with "GNU" in their name are offically part of the GNU Project; Linux isn't.
The C standard does not make a distinction between the "compiler" and the "library"; it's all one "implementation" to the committee. It is largely a historical accident that GCC is a separate development project from glibc—but a motivated one: back in the day, each commercial Unix variant shipped with its own C library and compiler, and they were terrible, 90% bugs by volume was typical. GNU got its start providing a less terrible replacement for the compiler (and the shell utilities, which were also terrible).
Replacing the compiler on a traditional commercial Unix is a lot easier than replacing the C library, because the C library isn't just the functions defined in clause 7 of the C standard; as you have noticed, it also provides the lowest-level interface to the kernel, and often that wasn't very well documented. glibc did at one time at least sort-of support a bunch of these Unixes, but nowadays it can only be used with Linux and an experimental kernel called the Hurd. By contrast, GCC supports dozens of different CPUs and kernels, and Linux supports dozens of different CPUs.
If you write your own C library and/or kernel, it is relatively easy to write a "back end" so that GCC can generate code for them as a cross-compiler, and somewhat more difficult to port GCC to run in that environment. You may also need to write a back end for the assembler and linker, which are yet a fourth project ("GNU Binutils"). Porting glibc to a new CPU running Linux is a large but straightforward task; porting glibc to a new operating system is hard, especially if that OS is not Unix-ish. (Windows is decidedly not Unix-ish, so much so that when Microsoft wanted to make it easier to run programs written for Unix under Windows, the path of least resistance was to bolt an in-house clone of the Linux kernel onto the side of the NT kernel. I am not making this up.)
If you write your own C compiler, you will have to make it conform to the expectations of the library and kernel that it is generating code for. A lot of that is documented in the "ABI" specification for the environment you're working in, but not all, unfortunately.
If that doesn't clarify, please let us know what is still unclear.
I'm an avid Python user and it seems that I require MinGW to be installed on my Windows machine to compile some libraries. I'm a little confused about MinGW and GCC. Here's my question (from a real dummy point of view):
So Python is language which both interpreted and compiled. There are Linux and Windows implementations of Python which one simply installs and used the binary to a execute his code. They come bundled with a bunch of built-in libraries that you can use. It's the same with Ruby from what I've read.
Now, I've done a tiny bit a of C and I know that one has a to compile it. It has its built-in libraries which seem to be called header files which you can use. Now, back in the school day's, C, was writing code in a vi-like IDE called Turbo-C and then hitting F9 to compile it. That's pretty much where my C education ends.
What is MinGW and what is GCC? I've been mainly working on Windows systems and have even recently begun using Cygwin. Aren't they the same?
A simple explanation hitting these areas would be helpful.
(My apologies if this post sounds silly/stupid. I thought I'd ask here. Ignoring these core bits never made anyone a better programmer.)
Thanks everyone.
MinGW is a complete GCC toolchain (including half a dozen frontends, such as C, C++, Ada, Go, and whatnot) for the Windows platform which compiles for and links to the Windows OS component C Runtime Library in msvcrt.dll. Rather it tries to be minimal (hence the name).
This means, unlike Cygwin, MinGW does not attempt to offer a complete POSIX layer on top of Windows, but on the other hand it does not require you to link with a special compatibility library.
It therefore also does not have any GPL-license implications for the programs you write (notable exception: profiling libraries, but you will not normally distribute those so that does not matter).
The newer MinGW-w64 comes with a roughly 99% complete Windows API binding (excluding ATL and such) including x64 support and experimental ARM implementations. You may occasionally find some exotic constant undefined, but for what 99% of the people use 99% of the time, it just works perfectly well.
You can also use the bigger part of what's in POSIX, as long as it is implemented in some form under Windows. The one major POSIX thing that does not work with MinGW is fork, simply because there is no such thing under Windows (Cygwin goes through a lot of pain to implement it).
There are a few other minor things, but all in all, most things kind of work anyway.
So, in a very very simplified sentence: MinGW(-w64) is a "no-frills compiler thingie" that lets you write native binary executables for Windows, not only in C and C++, but also other languages.
To compile C program you need a C implementation for your specific computer.
C implementations consist, basically, of a compiler (its preprocesser and headers) and a library (the ready-made executable code).
On a computer with Windows installed, the library that contains most ready-made executable code is not compatible with gcc compiler ... so to use this compiler in Windows you need a different library: that's where MinGW enters. MinGW provides, among other things, the library(ies) needed for making a C implementation together with gcc.
The Windows library and MSVC together make a different implementation.
MinGW is a suite of development tools that contains GCC (among others), and GCC is a C compiler within that suite.
MinGW is an implementation of most of the GNU building utilities, like gcc and make on windows, while gcc is only the compiler. Cygwin is a lot bigger and sophisticated package, wich installs a lot more than MinGW.
The only reason for existence of MinGW is to provide linux-like environment for developers not capable of using native windows tools. It is inferior in almost every respect to Microsoft tooolchains on Win32/Win64 platforms, BUT it provides environment where linux developer does not have to learn anything new AND he/she can compile linux code almost without modifications. It is a questionable approach , but many people find that convenience more important than other aspects of the development .
It has nothing to do with C or C++ as was indicated in earlier answers, it has everything to do with the environment developer wants. Argument about GNU toolchains on windows and its nessessety, is just that - an argument
GCC - unix/linux compiler,
MinGW - approximation of GCC on Windows environment,
Microsoft compiler and Intel compiler - more of the same as names suggest(both produce much , much better programs on Windows then MinGW, btw)
I am planning a bigger C-only project. It should run on both Linux and Windows. My question is, what is the optimal development stack (compiler, IDE) on Windows? Problem is, we would like to use C99 (if possible).
On Linux it's quite easy because usually combination GCC+VIM+GIT is optimal. But on Windows?
I am concerning: Visual Studio 2010 (no C99 support), MinGW and Intel C++ Compiler.
How do they compare with each other in terms of performance?
For IDE, I've happily used VC++, MonoDevelop, and Code::Blocks (the latter two are cross-platform, as a plus). C isn't a very difficult language to make an IDE for, so most anything will work and it'll just come down to personal preference.
For compiler... C is very quick to compile on all of them, so I guess by performance you mean of generated code?
In my experience, Intel C++ optimizes best if you're targeting Intel CPUs. MinGW GCC optimizes best for everything else. VC++ optimizes very good, but not quite as much as GCC or ICC. This is of course in the general sense only -- I've had plenty experiences where VC++ bests them both.
VC++ compiler can integrate with some non-VC++ IDEs, like Code::Blocks. As you said, lacks C99 support (though, it does have stdint.h).
MinGW integrates with most IDEs, except VC++. Once upon a time its port of libstdc++ lacked support for wchar_t, making Unicode apps very difficult to write. I'm not sure if this has changed.
ICC integrates with the VC++ IDE, some non-VC++ IDEs, as well as supporting C99 and Linux, however it has been shown in the past to deliberately use sub-optimal code when used with non-Intel CPUs -- I'm not sure if this is still the case.
Agner Fog's Optimizing software in C++ provides a decent comparison of compilers, included optimization capabilities.
Well, GCC is GCC. Performance is identical over different OSes, minus ABI and C stdlib differences that may impact performance.
This is an easy problem to solve, use GCC everywhere, meaning MinGW, or the more up to date mingw-w64 (includes 32 and 64-bit compilation capabilities). It provides all (most, meaning 99.9%) of the Win32 API when you need it.
Note that although it's the same compiler, ABI is different for say, Windows x64 vs Linux x64 (in this case: the size of long), and you should ensure the code compiles and works on all platforms you intend to target, regularly.
Using GCC with -pedantic-errors -Wall -Wextra is a nice help for this (if you silence all warnings!), but not perfect.
The Intel compiler will bring better performance, but is only free for personal use on Linux (you can't distribute binaries produced by the free version if I remember correctly), so if you want free tools, that's out. Visual C sucks at C99. It's a C89 compiler, and that isn't going to change soon.
Most development tools are available on Windows as well, see for example msysgit and vim.
I want to learn C language (is this something good ?) and i didn't know from where i can download the language to my PC ?
and are this FREE or must pay for ?
Is C a good language? Definitely. Is it the best first language? Depends.
If you are using Windows, you can download Visual C++ 2008 Express Edition SP1 from Microsoft for free.
On Ubuntu, just run
sudo apt-get install build-essential
On Mac OS X, install Xcode from Snow Leopard/Leopard DVD (or download the latest version from Apple developer Web site)
There are quite a few free C compilers for the PC.
As seen above, MS Visual Studio comes in a free version.
However, most introductory C programming materials will work best in a unix-like environment. Two options for such an environment are:
Cygwin, which provides a unix-like environment that can be installed over a windows system.
MinGW32/MSYS, which natively ports GCC and some unix-like development tooling onto Windows, allowing you to use GCC to build native Win32 apps.
For learning you might be better off running a native unix/linux environment. If you already have Windows and don't want to uninstall or dual-boot you can run this under a VM. Several free hypervisors are available that will let you do this.
If you want to use a different development environment you could try Eclipse.
Just go to this link and look for Eclipse IDE for C/C++ Developers (79 MB).
http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/
There is a free compiler called gcc that will compile C code. On Mac OS X and Linux you probably already have it, try typing gcc at a command prompt.
On Windows, you can still use gcc, but you need to use either Cygwin or Mingw.
Or if you want to use an IDE and Microsoft's C compiler you can get a free version of Visual Studio here.
You can use Dev C++ . Very decent tool for beginners and intermediates.
OK (all free):
For Windows
- there is Visual C++ Express
- MinGW (and is command-line based)
You will need the MS Platform SDK as well.
Linux/Sun
- GCC (there are a number of ways to get this distro depending)
OS X
- Apple's Developer Tools (Xcode and others)
It is definitely free to learn and program C, but the answer to your first question "is this something good ?" depends on what your goals are. C is a very good language for some things, but not everything.
System programming is almost always done in C, along with network programs and some applications. C is also the basis for most modern programming languages you will work with, so learning the C syntax can be applied as you go about learning other things. However, if you are looking to make a interactive webpage, you might want to learn PHP. If you are looking to make a desktop application with a GUI, you might want to learn Java.
If you want to just get a start learning about programming, C can help you with that. If that's what you want to do, and dont care much about application right now, I suggest you go to the bookstore and just find a book on learning C for beginners. It should have a CD in the back with a compiler (probably visual studio), and should get you on your way.
This is a an excellent reference of free compilers for many systems.
http://www.thefreecountry.com/compilers/cpp.shtml
Intel provides free non-commercial compilers for Linux. The download includes the excellent Intel debugger & profiler. The free license can be summed up in two points:
My use of software products is for personal non-commercial purposes.
I understand that technical support will be provided by community self-help and user forums (via the Software Support link above), but cannot get committed support with a non-commercial license.
For the projects I work on, I personally prefer Intel Compilers over GNU... Intel seems to do a better job of optimization.
On Windows, I'll suggest Dev CPP. This is free an a very good product. It is also easier for the newbies to learn. I used it a lot. You can download the latest from
http://www.bloodshed.net/devcpp.html
If in Linux, there should be gcc. Use any editor of your choice( In my case vim). Just type vim filename.c in the terminal. This should bring the editor. press 'i' and write in the code. then press 'Esc' followed by ':' and x (This will save the file and exit the editor.
Now type gcc filename.c at the terminal. this should compile it. Now enter ./a.out to execute it.
If you wanted a "portable" compiler, Tiny C Compiler is a decent compiler that you can take with you on a USB stick - it's only a single .exe file or a single folder IIRC. It is cross platform as well, but the biggest downsides are that the warnings are lacking and that it's optimization isn't as good as the bigger compilers out there.
Nonetheless, it's a decent compiler to "play around with" if you don't want to install Visual Studio or Cygwin on Windows.
I think you need to be clear about the distinction between C and C++ before you decide what to do.
On Windows, try either Digital Mars C and C++ compilers or Open Watcom C and C++ products
About.com maintains a large list of c compilers for windows at http://cplus.about.com/od/glossary/a/compilers.htm