Saturday, September 13, 2014

Digest for comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com - 22 updates in 5 topics

comp.lang.c++@googlegroups.com Google Groups
Unsure why you received this message? You previously subscribed to digests from this group, but we haven't been sending them for a while. We fixed that, but if you don't want to get these messages, send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 13 04:25AM -0700

I found a copy on Amazon.com for $44. I went ahead
and bought it. I did so because the edit-and-continue
compiler in that version is nearly instantaneous. Such
makes for very swift debugging. Code change, and press
F10 to continue with scarcely a pause. Desirable.
 
So I will use VS2008 for most development as it has
better editing features.
 
And MSDEV98 and VC++ 6 for debugging.
 
Should be getting it next week.
 
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
Victor Bazarov <v.bazarov@comcast.invalid>: Sep 13 08:51AM -0400

On 9/13/2014 7:25 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> I found a copy on Amazon.com for $44. I went ahead
> and bought it. I did so because the edit-and-continue
> compiler in that version is nearly instantaneous. [..]
 
Good for you. It is admirable that you manage to write your programs
without ever needing any language features that are missing from such an
old implementation. Make sure to let folks know that you're using a
prehistoric (in the sense of standardized language) compiler if you ever
find a need to ask for help, just to avoid a useless to you advice of
getting decent tools.
 
Best of luck!
 
V
--
I do not respond to top-posted replies, please don't ask
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 13 08:11AM -0700

On Saturday, September 13, 2014 8:51:50 AM UTC-4, Victor Bazarov wrote:
> find a need to ask for help, just to avoid a useless to you advice of
> getting decent tools.
 
> Best of luck!
 
 
Should I also mention I'm using Windows 2000 Professional or Windows
Server 2003 in a VirtualBox environment under Linux 64?
 
I use those old, antiquated tools because they are exceedingly fast on
modern equipment, even when running under virtualization, while they
support the single most important debug tool I've ever encountered
(which is edit-and-continue, hands down the most handy debugging tool
available in terms of the speed of getting applications debugged. In
fact, I would rank it above everything else, which is why I am willing
to dip into old tools to have it go even faster).
 
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 13 04:59PM +0100

On 13/09/2014 16:11, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> available in terms of the speed of getting applications debugged. In
> fact, I would rank it above everything else, which is why I am willing
> to dip into old tools to have it go even faster).
 
VC++ 6.0 is NOT a C++ compiler; it will NOT compile modern C++ so is
more or less totally useless mate. VC++ 6.0 will not even compile C++98
nevermind C++03, C++11 or C++14.
 
/Flibble
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 13 09:38AM -0700

On Saturday, September 13, 2014 12:00:17 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> VC++ 6.0 is NOT a C++ compiler; it will NOT compile modern C++ so is
> more or less totally useless mate. VC++ 6.0 will not even compile C++98
> nevermind C++03, C++11 or C++14.
 
It is the C/C++ compiler which comes with Visual Studio 98:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_C%2B%2B
 
"Visual C++ 6.0 (commonly known as VC6), which included MFC 6.0, was
released in 1998. The release was somewhat controversial since it did
not include an expected update to MFC. Visual C++ 6.0 is still quite
popular and often used to maintain legacy projects..."
 
-----
My code is very simple because in my experience simple code means far
easier long-term maintenance. And I'm prepared to work-around any issues
which arise in my code / coding style to gain the advantages present
in the nearly instantaneous edit-and-continue debugger environment.It is
xceedingly conducive to the way I code.
 
Generally speaking, the only C++ extensions I use are the remove of a
"struct" prefixes, single-line comments on everything, and the extra
casting requirements for for migrating pointers, such as casting malloc(),
as these document purposeful intent in the code and are desirable.
 
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
 
-----
Options to compile as .C or .CPP:
/Tc<source file> compile file as .c
/Tp<source file> compile file as .cpp
 
-----
From the cl /? command line (80 column width):
c:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio\VC98\Bin>cl /?
 
Microsoft (R) 32-bit C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 12.00.8168 for 80x86
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corp 1984-1998. All rights reserved.
 
C/C++ COMPILER OPTIONS
 
-OPTIMIZATION-
 
/O1 minimize space /Op[-] improve floating-pt consistency
/O2 maximize speed /Os favor code space
/Oa assume no aliasing /Ot favor code speed
/Ob<n> inline expansion (default n=0) /Ow assume cross-function aliasing
/Od disable optimizations (default) /Ox maximum opts. (/Ogityb1 /Gs)
/Og enable global optimization /Oy[-] enable frame pointer omission
/Oi enable intrinsic functions
 
-CODE GENERATION-
 
/G3 optimize for 80386 /Gy separate functions for linker
/G4 optimize for 80486 /Ge force stack checking for all funcs
/G5 optimize for Pentium /Gs[num] disable stack checking calls
/G6 optimize for Pentium Pro /Gh enable hook function call
/GB optimize for blended model (default) /GR[-] enable C++ RTTI
/Gd __cdecl calling convention /GX[-] enable C++ EH (same as /EHsc)
/Gr __fastcall calling convention /Gi[-] enable incremental compilation
/Gz __stdcall calling convention /Gm[-] enable minimal rebuild
/GA optimize for Windows Application /EHs enable synchronous C++ EH
/GD optimize for Windows DLL /EHa enable asynchronous C++ EH
/Gf enable string pooling /EHc extern "C" defaults to nothrow
/GF enable read-only string pooling /QIfdiv[-] enable Pentium FDIV fix
/GZ enable runtime debug checks /QI0f[-] enable Pentium 0x0f fix
 
-OUTPUT FILES-
 
/Fa[file] name assembly listing file /Fo<file> name object file
/FA[sc] configure assembly listing /Fp<file> name precompiled header file
/Fd[file] name .PDB file /Fr[file] name source browser file
/Fe<file> name executable file /FR[file] name extended .SBR file
/Fm[file] name map file
 
-PREPROCESSOR-
 
/C don't strip comments /FI<file> name forced include file
/D<name>{=|#}<text> define macro /U<name> remove predefined macro
/E preprocess to stdout /u remove all predefined macros
/EP preprocess to stdout, no #line /I<dir> add to include search path
/P preprocess to file /X ignore "standard places"
 
-LANGUAGE-
 
/Zi enable debugging information /Zl omit default library name in .OBJ
/ZI enable Edit and Continue debug info /Zg generate function prototypes
/Z7 enable old-style debug info /Zs syntax check only
/Zd line number debugging info only /vd{0|1} disable/enable vtordisp
/Zp[n] pack structs on n-byte boundary /vm<x> type of pointers to members
/Za disable extensions (implies /Op) /noBool disable "bool" keyword
/Ze enable extensions (default)
 
-MISCELLANEOUS-
 
/?, /help print this help message /V<string> set version string
/c compile only, no link /w disable all warnings
/H<num> max external name length /W<n> set warning level (default n=1)
/J default char type is unsigned /WX treat warnings as errors
/nologo suppress copyright message /Yc[file] create .PCH file
/Tc<source file> compile file as .c /Yd put debug info in every .OBJ
/Tp<source file> compile file as .cpp /Yu[file] use .PCH file
/TC compile all files as .c /YX[file] automatic .PCH
/TP compile all files as .cpp /Zm<n> max memory alloc (% of default)
 
-LINKING-
 
/MD link with MSVCRT.LIB /MDd link with MSVCRTD.LIB debug lib
/ML link with LIBC.LIB /MLd link with LIBCD.LIB debug lib
/MT link with LIBCMT.LIB /MTd link with LIBCMTD.LIB debug lib
/LD Create .DLL /F<num> set stack size
/LDd Create .DLL debug libary /link [linker options and libraries]
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 13 05:46PM +0100

On 13/09/2014 17:38, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> "struct" prefixes, single-line comments on everything, and the extra
> casting requirements for for migrating pointers, such as casting malloc(),
> as these document purposeful intent in the code and are desirable.
 
I know what VC++ is mate I have been using it since 1993 and I repeat:
VC++ 6.0 is NOT a C++ compiler it is a VC++ compiler.
 
You can only use VC++ 6.0 to compile Microsoft's ancient non-standard
compliant C++ dialect. It is totally fucking useless mate.
 
You think it is good because it is fast and cheap? Try g++ or clang
mate, they are free. Also VS2013 Express is also free.
 
/Flibble
Bo Persson <bop@gmb.dk>: Sep 13 07:06PM +0200

Mr Flibble skrev den 2014-09-13 18:46:
> VC++ 6.0 is NOT a C++ compiler it is a VC++ compiler.
 
> You can only use VC++ 6.0 to compile Microsoft's ancient non-standard
> compliant C++ dialect. It is totally fucking useless mate.
 
Seems like he is essentially using it as a C compiler, in which case it
is a half decent C89 compiler.
 
 
Bo Persson
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 13 06:13PM +0100

On 13/09/2014 18:06, Bo Persson wrote:
>> compliant C++ dialect. It is totally fucking useless mate.
 
> Seems like he is essentially using it as a C compiler, in which case it
> is a half decent C89 compiler.
 
If he is using it as a C compiler why is he posting to C++ newsgroup?
 
/Flibble
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 13 10:20AM -0700

On Saturday, September 13, 2014 12:46:27 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> I know what VC++ is mate I have been using it since 1993 and I repeat:
> VC++ 6.0 is NOT a C++ compiler it is a VC++ compiler.
 
The title of this thread is "Visual C++ Version 6..."
 
> You can only use VC++ 6.0 to compile Microsoft's ancient non-standard
> compliant C++ dialect. It is totally ... useless mate.
 
Your attitude and tone is one of exceeding unnecessary harshness. I
am wondering why you are being so negative.
 
I have (generally speaking) only used MS's compilers since the late
80s as most all of my development has been in MS-DOS and Windows. I
have only used GCC compiler varieties since about 2007, and even then
I have found them to be obtuse and clunky for debugging given that you
cannot have edit-and-continue, and the debuggers I've seen are obtuse
as well.
 
As I say, my code is very simple. I do not use anything that should
break even their old compiler peculiarities, but if it does then I'm
content to change it because it is that simple.
 
This is not a matter that should concern you. And I am sorry if my
post has caused you to get so upset. I am really beside myself in that
you are so upset. I will say a prayer for you, /Flibble.
 
> You think it is good because it is fast and cheap? Try g++ or clang
> mate, they are free. Also VS2013 Express is also free.
 
I use GCC today (alongside VS2008) to help find bugs. GCC's warnings and
bug reporting are far superior to VS's. I will not use CLANG because it's
an Apple product, and I will use no Apple products. And I will not use
VS2010 or later because they are part of the Microsoft-post-Azure-announcement
company that refocused their future so that all software tracks and monitors
your use of it, and creates output files which are also part of their track-
and-monitor system. They, along with Apple, and a few others, are moving
people toward this "you must be known to us to use our tools" system, which
is part of a corralling people into pastures they can continually monitor
for whatever purposes. All such herding efforts are ill-conceived and are
harmful to people.
 
My Liberty Software Foundation and Visual FreePro Project were created to
combat that end. However, because I place Jesus Christ out front, being
the reason why I do not go into corporate-goals and corporate-ends, I have
not yet found anyone to help me with the coding.
 
These older tools are autonomous, stand-alone, they can operate completely
independently of any type of online presence or footprint, and they compile
software into the win32 environment, which is also autonomous and free from
the modern "calling home to mama" presentations we see in .NET and related
tools, technologies, servers, etc.
 
The old tools were freeer. I am choosing them for those reasons, even if
they don't live up to modern standards in coding. I am also writing my own
C compiler, called RDC, which will not include much of the current baggage
inherent in the C/C++ specs. It will be a Rapid Development Compiler, and
it will contain a lot of features designed to help the developer create
his code so that once it is up and running, it can then be ported to
another tool if it is so desired. However, a long-term goal is also to add
optimizers and features which will make it desirable to also leave the
code in RDC and go from there.
 
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
Bo Persson <bop@gmb.dk>: Sep 13 07:25PM +0200

Rick C. Hodgin skrev den 2014-09-13 18:38:
> released in 1998. The release was somewhat controversial since it did
> not include an expected update to MFC. Visual C++ 6.0 is still quite
> popular and often used to maintain legacy projects..."
 
Despite its 1998 release date, it was released before the C++98 standard
and made very few attempts to comply with that.
 
Other unfortunate circumstances caused the C++ standard library to be
essentially the same as the library in VC 5.0.
 
So, for the last 10 years, using VC6 as a C++ compiler has NOT been a
good idea.
 
One reason for it to become "popular" is that it took a whole 5 years
before MS released a better compiler, VS2003 (please let's just forget
about the 2002 Managed Extensions).
 
 
Bo Persson
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 13 10:27AM -0700

On Saturday, September 13, 2014 1:13:34 PM UTC-4, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > Seems like he is essentially using it as a C compiler, in which case it
> > is a half decent C89 compiler.
 
> If he is using it as a C compiler why is he posting to C++ newsgroup?
 
 
Because it is a C++ compiler even if it has some Microsoft peculiarities.
My conveyance in this message is that I am going "backward" because of
this one aspect: nearly instantaneous edit-and-continue debugging.
 
I place a priority on above all other debugging aids (apart from the
obvious standard features, such as being able to inspect a variable,
examine memory, change something at debug-time, etc.).
 
Edit-and-continue is worth more to me than anything else as a tool, and
my desire to not move forward into the herding of people into track-and-
monitored versions is why I won't go with any Apple product, nor anything
Microsoft-related during their post-Windows-Azure announcement timeframe.
 
Microsoft changed at that point, and every product they've released since
that day has been one of a focused purpose toward online monitoring of
people's activity ... from Win8 through office products to their dev tools.
 
And as for Apple ... the bite out of the fruit ... no thank you.
 
Your mileage may vary.
 
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 13 06:54PM +0100

On 13/09/2014 18:27, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> people's activity ... from Win8 through office products to their dev tools.
 
> And as for Apple ... the bite out of the fruit ... no thank you.
 
> Your mileage may vary.
 
I think you are in need of antipsychotic medication mate.
 
/Flibble
Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Sep 13 06:25PM

On Sat, 2014-09-13, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
 
> Because it is a C++ compiler even if it has some Microsoft peculiarities.
> My conveyance in this message is that I am going "backward" because of
> this one aspect: nearly instantaneous edit-and-continue debugging.
 
Fine, but please note that this pretty alienates you and
comp.lang.c++. We cannot help you, and you cannot help us.
 
> Your mileage may vary.
 
Indeed.
 
/Jorgen
 
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com>: Sep 13 03:17PM -0700

On Saturday, September 13, 2014 1:52:45 PM UTC-4, Stefan Ram wrote:
> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes:
> >VC++ 6
>Please don't feed the TROLLs!
 
I am not a troll. I am honestly happy about this purchase and wanted
to share it with some developers to whom I have some connection in
this area of my life (c++ programmers). I have been wanting to get
this particular version of Visual Studio for some time. The copies
I've found have been several hundred dollars. I was happy to see the
$44 copy of Visual C++, which is all I would've really used anyway.
 
This is the Standard Edition, so it doesn't support optimization,
only raw un-optimized code (IIRC) ... but, that's also fine.
 
In any event... I'll stop posting now. I apologize for consuming so
much of your time with something that made me happy.
 
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>: Sep 14 11:05AM +1200

Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
>>> VC++ 6
>> Please don't feed the TROLLs!
 
> I am not a troll.
 
Waxing lyrical about a notoriously awful compiler on a forum frequented
by people such as me who had to suffer its awfulness tends to give the
opposite impression!
 
If I'd known there was someone willing to pay for a copy, mine wouldn't
have gone to landfill a decade ago...
 
--
Ian Collins
Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid>: Sep 13 09:24PM +0200

Op 30-Aug-14 0:32, Mr Flibble schreef:
> Boost.PropertyTree (RapidXml) write 14MB XML file: 0.9755 seconds
 
> http://i42.co.uk/stuff/NoFussXML.htm
 
> /Flibble
 
No sausages... No sausage no glory.
Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk>: Sep 13 09:50PM +0100

On 13/09/2014 20:24, Dombo wrote:
 
>> http://i42.co.uk/stuff/NoFussXML.htm
 
>> /Flibble
 
> No sausages... No sausage no glory.
 
Indeed!
 
/Flibble
Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid>: Sep 12 07:15PM -0700

On 12 Sep 2014 21:42:18 GMT, ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram)
wrote:
 
> faster than that. »That« is called the »break-even
> point«. (Sorry for replying to a signature, I could
> not resist.)
 
Logically true but not as fun as Lewis Carroll's original. Of course
it depends a lot on how fast you want to get there or how much effort
you have to expend to stay in one place.
ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram): Sep 13 05:52PM

>VC++ 6
 
\|||/
(o o)
|~~~~ooO~~(_)~~~~~~~|
| Please |
| don't feed the |
| TROLLs ! |
'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ooO~~'
|__|__|
|| ||
ooO Ooo
Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Sep 13 06:27AM

On Thu, 2014-09-11, Noob wrote:
> }
 
> return result;
> }
 
A different critique: here you're saying array + array means, in your
whole program and for any arrays, element-wise addition.
 
I'm all for operator overloading, but this one is a bit hard to
swallow. For one thing, it will only work when T + T is defined.
 
(And it won't work as-is for int + long and so on.)
 
Also, if you're new to C++ perhaps you should stick to std::vector at
first, unless you have very special needs. If you're coming from C,
std::vector is the one that should replace most C-style arrays.
 
/Jorgen
 
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com>: Sep 12 06:48PM -0500

On 9/12/2014 4:29 PM, Geoff wrote:
 
> Between MS and their tools and frameworks du jour (COM, MFC, ATL,
> etc...) and Apple with their variants of Xcode tools and frameworks
> they can keep you pretty busy.
 
I did not know that Visual Studio 2013 could produce
programs for NT, 2000 and newer. I think all of my
customers are off Windows 2000 but it is very hard to
tell. I know several of them are still running XP and
Windows Server 2003 though.
 
Sincerely,
Lynn McGuire
Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se>: Sep 13 06:01AM

On Fri, 2014-09-12, Lynn McGuire wrote:
 
>> MSVC 2012 is too old. It doesn't support all of C++11.
 
> Oh man, I hate to think of what you think about MSVC
> 2005 which we are stuck on.
 
Too old to support C++11 -- I think that was all he was saying. And
that's trivially true.
 
/Jorgen
 
--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)