Non-sucking Win32 C compiler

I need a small (not bloated to hell, clean, not system ruining / service installing) compiler for tiny C programs with POSIX-like semantics (i.e. C library that doesn't suck and stuff like read() instead of ReadFileWEX(WHANDLE, WSHARINGMODE, WSECURITYCONTEXT, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL) - true POSIX stuff like fork() et al is not needed).

Visual Studio or cygwin are out of the question. Some GCC distro like mingw might be OK depending on how much the installation sucks (ideally there wouldn't be any installation at all).

Any ideas or do I give up to ENTERPRISE-quality software?

If you're fine with C89 syntax, MSVC is decent. Mingw otherwise.

tcc

Sounds to me like you already know what you want. Why are you even asking this question?
MinGW doesn't need installation. You can copy the directory and take it in a flash drive to use it anywhere.

TCC but it has some limitations(very fast, has built-in interpreter,result code quality is poor(but can be somewhat optimized)).
 GCC on mingw(compilation speed varies,huge codebase,optimized code, alot of libraries depend on it).
Also try Pelles C (<-ENTERPRISE QUALITY windows bindings) and Digital Mars C compiler(If you need code better then TCC but dislike GCC).
TTC links to mscvrt.dll and has all their functions(even if you omit include files,though without defines like FILE* struct) exported by default:
e.g. this is valid TCC code
main(){printf("123");}




_____________________________________
http://xs135.xs.to/xs135/09042/av922.jpg
Velox Et Astrum gamedev forum: http://etastrum.phpbb3now.com
Humor is just another defense against the universe.

dislike GCC
What is this heresy?

e.g. this is valid C code
main(){printf("123");}
fify.  We have standards for a reason.

>>6
1.mingw GCC port is outdated.
2.Huge size and its a slowpoke.
3.Has numerous bugs.

_______________________
http://xs135.xs.to/xs135/09042/av922.jpg
Velox Et Astrum gamedev forum: http://etastrum.phpbb3now.com
The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong in the broken places. But those that will not break it kills. It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially. If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry.

>>7 All pages in my firefox set to render in Verdana, your <code> has no effect.



______________________________________
http://xs135.xs.to/xs135/09042/av922.jpg
Velox Et Astrum gamedev forum: http://etastrum.phpbb3now.com
There are two kinds of scientific progress: the methodical experimentation and categorization which gradually extend the boundaries of knowledge, and the revolutionary leap of genius which redefines and transcends those boundaries. Acknowledging our debt to the former, we yearn, nonetheless, for the latter.

>>9
Then why did you bring it up?  Jesus Christ you're a moron.

>>9
Au contraire, it is beneficial for all. You see your proportional fonts and we see your bloated monospace.

>>11 I don't use anything which is useless for me.



_____________________________________
http://xs135.xs.to/xs135/09042/av922.jpg
Velox Et Astrum gamedev forum: http://etastrum.phpbb3now.com
orbis terrarum delenda est

>>12
Like your brain apparently

>>1
lcc-win32

>>14
back to comp.lang.c, jacob.

x264 uses mingw for its Windows builds, it can't be all that bad.  Ask MrVacBob.

>>6
GCC is a piece of shit. Even most OSS projects hate it. Some big examples from the top of my head:

* ffmpeg's libavcodec H.264 decoder, despite all the assembly and GCC-catering optimizations, gets a 10% performance boost just by compiling it with ICC. ffmpeg, like a lot of other projects, has numerous workarounds for GCC bugs (code that refuses to compile depending on optimization settings, inline assembly that GCC can't manage to allocate input registers for...). The speed of the library has been regressing with basically every new GCC release, with 2.9.5 being the fastest and early 4s being the slowest (I hear that newer 4s do a bit better though)

* All of Mozilla's big projects (such as Firefox and Thunderbird) are compiled using MSVC on Windows, even though they can be compiled using GCC. Even before the builds started using PGO, GCC generated significantly worse code. Now PGO exacerbates this even more.

Also, let me remind you that MSVC does in fact support plenty of architectures. For example, Itanium, Alpha, and some PPC (the XBox360 at least) are supported. Moreover, its code generation hasn't really improved since the 6.0 release (which is over a decade old now), making GCC's suckuness even more embarrassing.

tl;dr: GCC is fine as long as you don't care at all about bloat, speed and codegen quality

>>16
x264 uses mingw because they don't want to support MSVC (it was three lines of code last time I saw it but they really hate it). Not they it matters since most time is spent in hand-crafted asm and it's written in a "spoonfed" style that makes generating bad code really difficult (that said, GCC does manage it, and there's some asm that should be unnecessary and is only there to workaround GCC's shit code generation, basically compiled asm dumps with GCC's retarded stuff fixed manually on top).

Here's some x264 developer GCC hate: http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/?p=62

>>17
Compiling for Windows is a different story. What GCCs are available for Windows? MinGW and Cygwin (and DJGPP, but I haven't actually tried that one). MinGW is a piece of bug-ridden shit, and it wouldn't surprise me if they didn't use Cygwin because of a licensing issue.

If it's so bug-ridden why don't you try fix it, oh yeah, forgot you can only use software and not write software, keep your bullshit to yourself monkey.

>>19
I don't know how to write compilers, and if I did, I wouldn't contribute to a GPL project.

Do you only complain about things you use and can also make? I doubt it.

IHBT

>>21
Dang. I meant to link to >>20

gcc bugs are more visible than bugs in other compilers simply because so many more people use gcc, and gcc is open source. They also tend to get fixed.

All of this gcc whining is entertaining, but it's a very solid C compiler, particularly when compared to most of the alternatives.

>>23
It's really not.

In the guise of G++, it's a really decent Sepples compiler (as those go) but for compiling C.... Well, I wouldn't feed it to my dog.

>>24
Well, I wouldn't feed it to my dog.
lolol is ur dof ded
U MENA HASKAL

>>25
No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Do not fucking start this shit again. Stop spamming this meme. It's in every single post visible on the front page.

>>26
Hello ``U MENA HASKAL'' memesmith.

>>26
U MEMESMITH HASKAL

The truth about GCC is that it is a monster of a system. This system is decades old. It has to account for a massive number of different quirks for the different standards, different languages and different architectures. The age of the system together with it's massive scope leads to results that may not be optimal as compared to more focused compilers.

This is why I believe it's not easy to compare GCC with other compilers as the other compilers target a much smaller scope.

>>29 The truth? You can't handle the truth!

>>30
I can handle the truth, ChristmasCake-chan~~ :3

>>30 The truth is out there, it just not indexed.

>>32
I put on my robe and tinfoil hat.

This thread has been truly insightful. Now I wouldn't feel so bad about writing my own compiler and code generator. Thank you /prog/!

Holy shit tcc is so unbelievably fast. Truly a God-tier compiler, for less size than it takes GCC to print its own version (or for MSVC's setup to show the EULA). I'm moving everything to tcc.

>>35
Enjoy not being able to compile real languages like Fortran 95

>>35
NOTE: TCC is still somewhat experimental and is not recommended for production use.  The code it generates is much less optimized than what GCC produces, and compiler bugs can have serious security consequences for your program.
It's useful if compiler size is and sometimes -O0 compiler speed is what you're after, but how often is that?

>>35 I use it mainly for writing quick hacks and toy programs.



_________________________________________
http://xs135.xs.to/xs135/09042/av922.jpg
Velox Et Astrum gamedev forum: http://etastrum.phpbb3now.com
Patriots always talk of dying for their country, and never of killing for their country.

>>37
tcc's "-O0 compiler speed" is 10 times faster than GCC's. That's totally unjustifiable for GCC, all thing considered. Twice as fast or so I'd understand, but an order of magnitude faster just means GCC sucks aplenty.

FUN FACT: GCC was originally written in Pascal.

I'm honestly not sure why exactly they rewrote it in C. Actually, I do know. They wanted to obfuscate it to keep it out of the hands of infidels.