Prev: Postfix to infix
Next: Not quite an out by 1 error, but it's out by something
From: fermineutron on 19 Oct 2006 21:19
I know a simmilar discussion about compilers in general was on this
board a while back, but it did not provide info i am looking for.

Basically what i want to know is what is a good C99 compiler and what
is a good linker to go along with it? I would like to be able to easily
integrate C and ASM routines, to do so i need a C compiler, which would
produce the object files from C code plus a good linker to king to the
C header files and assembled object files. Also, where can i find the
object file for libraries such as stdio and stdlib? I know different
compiles store them differently within its own directory structure,
but, is there a place online wher i can download them?

Also a question about object files, are object file for linux any
different than for windows? That is assuming that the C cod inside them
does not explecetly depend on a given OS. For example the objet file
for printf function would it be different in windows and Free BSD?

Thanks ahead

From: Richard Heathfield on 19 Oct 2006 22:39
fermineutron said:

> I know a simmilar discussion about compilers in general was on this
> board a while back, but it did not provide info i am looking for.
>
> Basically what i want to know is what is a good C99 compiler

Vanishingly rare. Comeau C comes close, I guess, but falls short of claiming
C99 conformance, as does gcc.

> Also, where can i find the
> object file for libraries such as stdio and stdlib?

It depends on the implementation.

> I know different
> compiles store them differently within its own directory structure,
> but, is there a place online wher i can download them?

For C99? Unlikely. For C90, the source to glibc is publicly available.
(Compile it yourself to get the object files.) See
http://directory.fsf.org/glibc.html for details.

>
> Also a question about object files, are object file for linux any
> different than for windows?

Yes, they are a different format completely. (Note that there are at least
two different object file formats for Windows!)

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
From: fermineutron on 20 Oct 2006 00:18
Looking at the dates when the C libraries were written, it got me
cutious, if C language, in part or as a whole has ever been reoptimized
for modern CPUs? Naturally all of the core C functions had to be at
some point in time be written in assembly and assembled into object
files, which were then linked into libraries. So have these assembly
routines been updated to use things like MMX and other "new"
technologies?

Are C99 routines which are duplecated of C89 any different from the C89
versions?

From: David W on 20 Oct 2006 00:46
"Richard Heathfield" <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:Q6GdnafBg4cgq6XYRVnysw(a)bt.com...
> fermineutron said:
>
> > I know a simmilar discussion about compilers in general was on this
> > board a while back, but it did not provide info i am looking for.
> >
> > Basically what i want to know is what is a good C99 compiler
>
> Vanishingly rare. Comeau C comes close, I guess, but falls short of claiming
> C99 conformance, as does gcc.

Forgive my ignorance of C, but why would this be? 1999 was, uh, seven years ago.

DW


From: Richard Heathfield on 20 Oct 2006 01:07
David W said:

> "Richard Heathfield" <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Q6GdnafBg4cgq6XYRVnysw(a)bt.com...
>> fermineutron said:
>>
>> > I know a simmilar discussion about compilers in general was on this
>> > board a while back, but it did not provide info i am looking for.
>> >
>> > Basically what i want to know is what is a good C99 compiler
>>
>> Vanishingly rare. Comeau C comes close, I guess, but falls short of
>> claiming C99 conformance, as does gcc.
>
> Forgive my ignorance of C, but why would this be? 1999 was, uh, seven
> years ago.

Apparently, very few people are terribly interested in C99 conformance
(which is no deep shock, since it adds little if anything important that is
of more than passing interest to anyone who is not a numerical analyst).

This is a very different situation to 1989, when implement{e|o}[1]rs were
falling over themselves in an effort to conform to the latest ANSI tweak.

Unless and until people actually care enough about C99 to mob the
compiler-writers' various castles with torches and pitchforks, those who
need portability have little choice but to stick with C90.


[1] Sorry, but my dictionary is of no help here!

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Postfix to infix
Next: Not quite an out by 1 error, but it's out by something