compilers

My compiler is shit(like most). It strangely is unable to compile .h files and the linker doesnt like libc.

What compiler would /prog/ suggest.

It helps to state what OS you are using.

the one built into my unix terminal

PSCS

>>2
i use slackware

GCC. It isn't awesome (no compiler is), but it's still the least amount of trouble for the most amount of functionality.

>>6
Thats too bad. I use GCC and its useless for me.

>>7
If you're >>1, you really just need to stop trying to use C. It's clearly too advanced for you.

>>8
Oh come on! I compile a C program no errors and what i get is a file that i cannot even execute.

There is nothing wrong with my C knowledge, hell GCC doesnt even like libc when i assemble a ASM file.

>>9
I don't know how you've managed to fuck up your compiler and linker so badly, but I can only assume it's symptomatic.

>>10
Thats the point: i didnt do shit!
That is how it was distributed.

Now i tried 3 different ones on windows with no success.

Im so pissed off.

>>11
Stick to IDEs

>>11
Stick to Python

>>11
That is how it was distributed.
So why is this the fault of the compiler, you ailing retard? 

Learn a different language.

>>11
Interesting how this doesn't seem to be a problem for the tens of thousands of C programmers out there. Just you.

>>11
Protip: sudo aptitude install build-essential

Blithering idiot.

>>14
So why is this the fault of the compiler, you ailing retard?

Considering i tried it with linking libc and doing it without libc on the same program, with the first not even being readable by objdump and the second one running smooth.
Yes it is the fault of the compiler(linker better said, but its part of the compiler so...).

>>17
Go learn Java or something.

unable to compile .h files

fundamental misunderstanding of C.

>>19
Not the dumbass in >>1 but I can compile .h files into .gch

>>20
I think you mean `precompile'.

>>21
Yeah, i did

>>21-22
It's called a pre-compiled header because it's compiled separately from the main program, but it's still real compilation.

"dumbass"
"stick to x"
"do this"
"do that"

Yet none of you actually answer him, perhaps you should take an hour off and go sit in your respective hugboxes.

>>24
Answer what, exactly? His original question? A few people did, and the answers are useless to him because the problem isn't his compiler, but him.
If you mean none of us have solved his problems with terminal ineptitude, we can't actually do that until he gives, at the very least, some specific error messages. That's assuming he manages to figure out how to copy/paste without blaming his keyboard.

OP is an idiot for several reasons.

1. He's using slackware.
2. He fucked up his gcc install.

This thread has been closed and replaced with the following thread:

Subject: Compiling C code with GCC
Name:
Email:

It doesn't work.

Sure it does, you are just a retard.

>>26
I didnt fuck up anything, i made a clean install and it didnt work.

You can call me and idiot for using slackware, but i never broke anything that wasnt broken.

>>29
It is time for you to choose an easier language.  How about Java?

>>27
COMPILE MY ANUS

>>30
Java
easier

OP here

>>25
I dont get any messages.

It goes like this:
1. I compile a programm gcc input.c -o output.
2. I get an output file.
3. I chmod u+x output
4. I type output into terminal and get file not found error, even when trying this with thunar same shit.

Objdump does not work either

Now i found out it was the linker because i have a few ASM programs, that i link manualy and everytime i ld input -o output -lc or even include /lib/libc.so in the input of the linker i get a file without any errors or warnings but the same thing as above (cant exec).
When i do this without -lc, it works perfect.

And what the fuck is gch? Maybe i really am a shit stain and should use an easier language, but arent .h files the same thing as .c just differently marked for the user?

Well maybe i really am not that good at C as i thought, i think i understand C well and never had any big troubles with it, please enlighten me if this should be the case.

I also want to apoligize for shitposting on /prog/, i have a quite stressfull day behind me and am really sorry if my posts are below dogshit quality.

>>33
4. Try ./output

>>34
Tried that too. A few times, same result.

I dont think its because it cant find the file.

>>35
You should be more specific with this "file not found error"

>>36
That is as specific as it gets.
I type the name of the "compiled" file in the terminal, press enter and that is all i get.

And the file IS there and has execute permision set.

>>37
So not only are you unable to operate a compiler, you are unable to operate bash as well.

>>38
Im gonna laugh at this, once i stop throwing up.

So you're able to use a linker and an assembler, but can't use a basic command such as 'ls'. IHBT.

>>40
No sir, IHBT.