On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 19:37:30 +0000 (UTC), Mark Evans <Mark_member@pathlink.com> wrote:

> Go easy on Niall.  His position is reasonable and he can
> serve as one more bug reporter bringing DMC++ to full
> compliance.  DMC++ needs heavy-duty template programmers
> like Niall for stress testing.  Niall, just post stripped-
> down code snippets right here for Walter.  Then check
> back often for new beta releases incorporating fixes.

Already posted the most important one which causes an error in every compilation unit. I need that fixed before I can go any further.

> The best thing is to work on full C++ compliance so that,
> (perhaps alone among compilers) DMC++ won't require #ifdef
> workarounds.  That day seems not too far off and then
> "supporting" DMC++ will be trivial.

Between MSVC7.1, ICC v8 and GCC v3.4 I need only an #ifdef for the type_info symbol demangling. Otherwise the code is identical 100%

C++ compilers really have come far in recent months :)

> After that, we can pound on Walter for a Linux port...
> but then we'll need gcc's C++ extensions as well as the
> current Microsoft C++ extensions...hmm...

Why bother? Not only is GCC standard on Linux, Intel's excellent C++ compiler is free there too. If I were Walter's I'd work on my strengths rather than enter a market with much higher barriers to entry and little reward.

Cheers,
Niall

"Niall Douglas" <s_digitalmars@remove.me.nedprod.com> wrote in message news:opr39sb3zgkpcwcj@news.digitalmars.com...
> I'd like at least one free
> compiler for Windows besides GCC.
>
> If DMC occupied at least 25% of the Windows compiler market I'd consider forking the sources, but to be blunt, I have better things to be doing and so long as I have a working binary with all the major compilers for each of the three most popular PC architectures, any extra compiler support is cream on the milk as it were.

Check out the CNET download statistics here:

http://download.com.com/sort/3150-2069-0-1-5.html?

     CNET > Downloads > Windows > Software Developer > Compilers &
Interpreters
            Compilers & Interpreters  1-25 of 46 | next 21 >>
                  RE-SORT BY:  Name   Date added  User rating  CNET rating
                  How we rate Downloads
                  Total | Last week Availability


            Bloodshed Dev-C++ 4.0 pop
            Write and compile C++ programs.
            OS: Windows 95/98/NT/2000
            File Size: 7.8MB
            License: Free to try, $20 to buy
           04/11/2000
           90%
            1,086 votes    3,248   Download now



            Digital Mars C/C++ Compiler 8.29 pop
            Compile C/C++ programs for using in Windows environment.
            OS: Windows (all)
            File Size: 2.8MB
            License: Free
           09/16/2002
           71%
            35 votes    1,808   Download now

"Niall Douglas" <s_digitalmars@remove.me.nedprod.com> wrote in message news:opr39sb3zgkpcwcj@news.digitalmars.com...
> If DMC occupied at least 25% of the Windows compiler market I'd consider forking the sources,

The download statistics for DMC averaged over 900 per day in February. I also know that when wxWindows added support for DMC, there was a big spike in interest from DMC users. DMC flies under the radar a lot - we don't do full page ads, pay people to write books & articles, etc., but there are a lot of users out there.

Walter wrote:

> The download statistics for DMC averaged over 900 per day in February. I
> also know that when wxWindows added support for DMC, there was a big spike
> in interest from DMC users. DMC flies under the radar a lot - we don't do
> full page ads, pay people to write books & articles, etc., but there are a
> lot of users out there.

Also, there are quite a few very long term users that have been using DMC++, Symantec C++, Zortech C++, etc as there primary C++ compiler every since the first Zortech C++ saw the light...

-- 
ManiaC++
Jan Knepper

But as for me and my household, we shall use Mozilla... www.mozilla.org

>Why bother? Not only is GCC standard on Linux, Intel's excellent C++ compiler is free there too. If I were Walter's I'd work on my strengths

Walter's strenghts are exactly what is needed for Linux. Lean, sharp code generation with short compile cycles.

GCC is a bloated cow compared to DMC++.  It is rather monumentally
sad how bloated GCC really is, given that it is the standard for
Linux.  There have been discussions about that in the past
on DMC news.  Linux needs a better compiler.

The Intel compiler is not free on Windows last time I checked. Are you saying it is free for Linux?

-Mark

I just ran into a full-page magazine ad for Intel compilers. This is a January 2004 print magazine.

Intel C++ 8.0 for Linux or Windows retails at $400.
There is a separate "Math Kernel Library 6.1" for $200.

"Boost your performance with little or no source code changes. Source/Binary compatible with Microsoft Visual C++ and GCC 3.2."

There exist free evaluation trials, but Intel compilers
are not free products.

Mark

Mark Evans wrote:

> 
>>
>>If want a bug fixed...
>>
>>-scooter
> 
> Go easy on Niall.  His position is reasonable and he can
> serve as one more bug reporter bringing DMC++ to full
> compliance.  DMC++ needs heavy-duty template programmers
> like Niall for stress testing.  Niall, just post stripped-
> down code snippets right here for Walter.  Then check
> back often for new beta releases incorporating fixes.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to apologize for reacting to people who lambast and outright reject DMC++ because default template arguments are not quite right or <insert your favorite bug here>. All products have faults. I don't quite see DMC++ as a fly-by-night operation as Niall stated in a later post.

It's one thing to report a bug, it's quite another to outright reject the compiler for this one fault. I've had issues with DMC++ and Walter has been very responsive to fixing those issues. I only suggested monetary contributions as a means for attaching one's priority to getting one's particular bug fixed.

I agree that GCC 3.4 is a good compiler, but on Win32, I have better things to do than turn into a fossil waiting for code to compile (or autoconf to run.) I also have an issue with libstdc++ not being a DLL -- that fact alone makes GCC a bad candidate for writing C++-based DLLs.


-scooter

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 00:11:13 +0000 (UTC), Mark Evans <Mark_member@pathlink.com> wrote:

>> Why bother? Not only is GCC standard on Linux, Intel's excellent
>> C++ compiler is free there too. If I were Walter's I'd work on my
>> strengths
>
> Walter's strenghts are exactly what is needed for Linux.
> Lean, sharp code generation with short compile cycles.
>
> GCC is a bloated cow compared to DMC++.  It is rather monumentally
> sad how bloated GCC really is, given that it is the standard for
> Linux.  There have been discussions about that in the past
> on DMC news.  Linux needs a better compiler.

v3.4 is a very substantial improvement. Debug executables are a third of the size over v3.3 and the compiler is about three times faster *without* precompiled headers enabled.

Precompiled header support is still too toy for production use on GCC (being able to only precompile one header file is toy). But it's all pointing the right way.

I've not tested release build output yet - the code isn't working right now. But I'm hoping for good things - GCC v3.3 was outputting a binary over twice as big as MSVC for identical code.

> The Intel compiler is not free on Windows last time I checked.
> Are you saying it is free for Linux?

For non commercial use yes. Which is the majority of development for Linux.

Cheers,
Niall

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 12:25:26 -0800, Scott Michel <scottm@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:

> I'm sorry, but I'm not going to apologize for reacting to people who lambast
> and outright reject DMC++ because default template arguments are not quite
> right or <insert your favorite bug here>. All products have faults. I don't
> quite see DMC++ as a fly-by-night operation as Niall stated in a later
> post.

<sigh>

If I were rejecting it, I wouldn't be here now would I? From hearsay I hadn't heard good things about DMC but Mark Evans put me straight. It has come along a lot from when I last looked.

> It's one thing to report a bug, it's quite another to outright reject the
> compiler for this one fault. I've had issues with DMC++ and Walter has been
> very responsive to fixing those issues.

I didn't mean to be mean, but I did mean to be blunt. There are certain limits to what I will do to enable DMC support. I am happy to write a patch for scons, my make tool. I am happy to post small illustrative examples of bugs found. But I will not #ifdef in support to my library as I see DMC as having the bug, not my code.

> I agree that GCC 3.4 is a good compiler, but on Win32, I have better things
> to do than turn into a fossil waiting for code to compile (or autoconf to
> run.) I also have an issue with libstdc++ not being a DLL -- that fact
> alone makes GCC a bad candidate for writing C++-based DLLs.

Far more important to me is that GCC doesn't output MSVC compatible libraries for C++. This makes it impractical to use in the majority of scenarios.

Mark is right when he says there should be a compliant & free C++ compiler for Windows and DMC is the best place right now to do this. I also agree that libraries should support just such a thing. However, it's not a priority for me to the point of obfuscating my code though I'll help where I can.

Sorry if I caused you any offense Scott, it was not meant that way.

Cheers,
Niall

On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 18:26:03 -0500, Jan Knepper <jan@smartsoft.us> wrote:

> Also, there are quite a few very long term users that have been using DMC++, Symantec C++, Zortech C++, etc as there primary C++ compiler every since the first Zortech C++ saw the light...

That's right :-) but I missed the Zortech period ...

-- 
Robert M. Münch
Management & IT Freelancer
http://www.robertmuench.de