I have a Compiler but it is really not that good,
so if any of u guys have any idea where to find
a free program compiler, let me know.
New: Kanri (Oct 9, '24), Platform 29.5.3 (Jun 27, '24)
1,100+ portable packages, 1.1 billion downloads
No Ads November!, Please donate today
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on BlueSky
Compiler for what language? There are umpteen jillion programming languages out there. Lots of them are free. If you need to compile C(++), try gcc. If you need to compile Java, javac is the official utility to do so.
Rick Smith // Paladin225
Rick Smith // Paladin225
MS compilers generate much better code than gcc. They are not portable and not open source though.
"Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do." Asimov
I have a Compiler but it is really not that good,
so if any of u guys have any idea where to find
a free program compiler, let me know.
Are MS's compilers free?
Why do you say MS compilers generate much better code, by the way?
Rick Smith // Paladin225
Rick Smith // Paladin225
They are free, MS even released an IDE for free.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/visualc/
If you are doing anything portable then you should be sure not to do anything .NET.
cowsay Moo
cowthink 'Dude, why are you staring at me.'
MS compilers are free. You pay for IDE and libraries.
Want some comparisons?
http://www.willus.com/ccomp_benchmark.shtml?p6
http://www.aceshardware.com/read_news.jsp?id=75000387
http://osdir.com/ml/java.harmony.devel/2005-10/msg00109.html
http://biolpc22.york.ac.uk/wx/wxhatch/wxMSW_Compiler_choice.html
Intel's complier generates the fastest ( but very big ) code. But AFAIK it's not free.
"Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do." Asimov
Sorry to ask, I don't know much about compilers, but from the four links you posted, the first two are mainly concerned with floating point operations, which are used mainly in simulation problems and in intensive graphics rendering, so they seem a bit incomplete in the sense that perhaps for any other kind of application, other operations will represent a much greater proportion of the running time. (And the first one doesn't say anything about gcc).
The third one which seems to be much a more general test gives 6.48 sec for MSVC and 0.9 sec for gcc.
And the fourth one seems to be more concerned with the times in which they compile than with how fast the programs run. And with the program they do time running, the numbers aren't all that conclusive.
Is there anything else your basing your conclusions on? (Sorry, just asking. If one can really produce significantly faster exe's, it might come in handy to know it).
I base my conclusions on 2 factors.
1. Speed. MSVC is faster in almost all tests found on the first 2 google search pages.
1st test - max differences - 4.5045045% for gcc, 29.5652174% for MS. Average 22.4058456% for MS.(I took averages from the site).
2nd - 3.9927794% for gcc to 109,6812722% for MS (!), average 15.99763695% for MS. (this one with >100% difference is responsible for it...)
3rd - If I read it more carefully, I'd not post it - measuring execution times with optimizations off hardly makes sence. But still MS is 9.0298507% faster.
4th - 33.3764554% faster (Isn't it conclusive??)
2 executable size.
1st test - 8.2783019% - 57.6682692% for MS, average 25.606529%.
2nd - NA
3rd - NA
4th - 126.9230769% for MS
Size can be easily tweaked even more because MS uses bigger align than gcc. (4KB, it's optimization for win 98). I'm not sure if VS 2K5 still uses it.
"Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do." Asimov
OK, I've figured out that in the first one gcc appears as mingw. But both that one and the second one test almost exclusively for FLOPS, i.e.: FLoating point Operations Per Second, right? So what happens with a program that doesn't do floating point arithmetic, but something else... text crunching for instance...? Or compiling?
The third one, has two comparisons, with and without speed optimizations. Without them MSVC is a bit faster, but with them, DevCpp and GCC are much faster. Almost ten times faster. (It took me some time to figure it out, the numbers are so misaligned!)
And the fourth one... Well bcc seems to beat them all in that one. You see... in the first two, which where all about floating point ops, MSVC beats bcc, but in this one that is about text crunching, bcc beats MSVC.
So wouldn't the conclusion be that if you're doing floating point arithmetic, MSVC is your best choice, but if you're doing text parsing, it's bcc, and for other stuff more benchmarking is needed?
Also, the fourth one states that he found times vary 10% Doesn't this mean that he is letting something else, (other processes taking up CPU time, latency time for memory swaps...) interfere with his measurements. If those factors can introduce a difference of 10% on each... well 10% here, 10% there and the difference isn't that big any more... in fact if bcc did 10% more, and Visual C 2006 10% less, then Visual C would be faster... so there's "noise" in the experiment. And you could also add and substract 10% the other way around to make bcc even faster... Well, in any case that's what I meant that they aren't conlusive... 20% added error, and only 30% difference...
Mine:
MS compiler : proprietary.
gcc : Free as in freedom.
GCC wins, don't really want to depend on a big company to compile my own programs. With the correct library GCC allows you to make cross platform apps easily without caring about how different it would be in the rest, the compiler will be the same, this is how I ported my windows game to linux in less than 6 hours... Added to code::blocks being cross platform as well.
thanx
____________________________________________
Umm..... thats all i have to say- Nick
____________________________________________
Umm..... thats all i have to say- Nick
GCC is for linux/mac. There are, however ports (MinGW + Cygwin). Dev-C++ is an IDE for MinGW.
For MS C++ see http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/express/visualc
cowsay Moo
cowthink 'Dude, why are you staring at me.'