Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Free Optimizing C++ Compiler from Microsoft

michael posted more than 10 years ago | from the look-it-in-the-teeth dept.

Programming 953

FortranDragon writes "Microsoft has made the command line toolkit for Visual C++ available for a free download. You can use the toolkit to build applications and redistribute them if you want (though you should read the EULA for the details, as always). This is a nice boon for those that have to deal with cross-platform compatibility, especially since Microsoft has tried to make Visual C++ more conformant to the ISO C++ standard. Go forth and compile your favorite OSS or FS programs today. ;-)"

cancel ×

953 comments

Optimize my penis (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8896570)

And it will reward you with a sticky surprise.

Frist Psot (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8896572)

Does it compile the Linux kernel?

HELLO REDEEM YOURSELF AT #TEENS4CHRIST (-1, Troll)

Altise (707285) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896576)

batman touched my junk liberally. he strapped me in to his batmobile and he couldnt keep his offensive hands off of me. he was performing many red flag touches. i couldnt believe what the fuck was going on. i told batman the city would not approve of a millionare touching an underage kid for free.

no! (-1, Flamebait)

Zapdos (70654) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896579)

is all I need to say.

Weird Output (5, Funny)

naden (206984) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896581)

I just tried the following program:

#include

main()
{
printf ("Hello World!\n");
}

And I got the output "Hello Suckers" .. anyone have any idea why ?

Re:Weird Output (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8896597)

I just tried the following program:

#include
main()
{
printf ("Hello World!\n");
}


...forgetting something? microsoft compiler must be really great if it can compile that code!

Re:Weird Output (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8896662)

Blame Slashcode for removing
<stdio.h>

Re:Weird Output (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8896624)

anyone have any idea why ?

Because you're a retard who doesn't know how to code C?

Re:Weird Output (1, Informative)

naden (206984) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896649)

<i>Because you're a retard who doesn't know how to code C?</i>

Or how about because I pressed Submit accidentally instead of Preview .. do you think that could have something to do with it ??

#include <stdio.h> .. it strips out the HTML tags if you set it as Plain Text.

not that I have any idea why im responding to an AC .. heh its a quiet night.

Re:Weird Output (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8896678)

So you're a retard who can't code C or HTML.

Re:Weird Output (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8896690)

And you're just a retard.

Re:Weird Output (1, Insightful)

naden (206984) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896693)

So you're a retard who can't code C or HTML.

No. More so I'm a retard who keeps pressing Submit instead of Preview. There's a difference.

Re:Weird Output (2, Insightful)

Borg453b (746808) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896706)

Never mind the troll. I thought your "suckers" joke was funny, and so did my bro when I told him about it

Re:Weird Output (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8896651)

Might be because the 'Comment' box doesn't like something eclosed into < and >?

Here, let's try:

If you didn't see <testing> then the comment box strips the include thingy...

Re:Weird Output (1, Informative)

El_Ge_Ex (218107) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896675)

Sad as it is, VC++ probably would compile that. One of the reasons MS wasn't ANSI standard was that it would do things like let the programmer use printf() without using or .

One of the weirdest though is the time I renamed a .c file to cpp and recompiled. Strange results....

-B

in other words (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8896582)

microsoft are giving away a C++ compiler, like gcc, for free.

Seems like a pretty good thing to me.

Re:in other words (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8896636)

Anything Microsoft does always "sounds good"..

But it's like making a deal with the devil!

YMMV, but it usually bites you in the ass later.

Re:in other words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8896639)

and the source code for this compiler (and the rights to use their patents in applying the same linking techniques in gcc) are where? free my arse...

Re:in other words (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8896658)

like gcc, for free

No, not like GCC. MS's compiler is free in the sense that you do not have to pay anything for it. GCC is also available at no cost, but it is free in sense that it is an open product, developed using the principles of free speech.

Re:in other words (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8896709)

GCC is also available at no cost, but it is free in sense that it is an open product, developed using the principles of free speech.

It's also developed using the principles of gay sex.

Re:in other words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8896714)

So you're saying that the MS compiler was developed using the principles of communism or something?

MS seems to be doing a lot of this lately... (5, Interesting)

Amiga Lover (708890) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896583)

MS seems to be doing a lot of this lately. It's nowhere near as open as F/OSS solutions, but it's freeing up access to what's possible with Windows far more than previously.

One of the reasons for the success of OSX is the general geek crowd's appreciation of it's *IX background, but without free dev tools that's nothing but another flavour of unix. Add the ability to dive into developing instantly and there's tens of thousands more developers working for the company.

Re:MS seems to be doing a lot of this lately... (3, Troll)

paganizer (566360) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896629)

The page seems to indicate that the .net runtime might be installed on your machine if you execute the download; can anyone who has done it confirm this for me? I don't want to have to drive a wooden stake through my CPU.
I'm a MCSE, but I would never purposfully allow .net in my house. it activates all my tin foil hat's little buzzers and lights.

Re:MS seems to be doing a lot of this lately... (5, Informative)

SoSueMe (263478) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896729)

The very first thing it does is try to configure .net on your machine.

Since my only Windows machine is 98, it couldn't complete the rest of the install.

Yes, it is a sacrificial test machine. I just wanted to see the EULA.

Re:MS seems to be doing a lot of this lately... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8896682)

just to clarify this Apple's dev tools ARE included, just NOT installed by DEFAULT.

EVERY new machine SHOULD come with a separate developer's CD just as every boxed version of OSX should. The end user just has to apply some elbow grease in a) noticing this, and b) bothering to install it.

Also in the unlikely event that the developer CD is not present or there is an upgrade it is ALWAYS available(even to free online developer members) as a download. Hell even the old classic dev toolset(name escapes me at the moment) has been available free since, what?, 1994/5 or so?

The only commercial environments are things like Codewarrior(Metrowerks), Absoft FORTRAN, RealBASIC, etc. Codewarrior MIGHT be worth it if you are trying to make money as their compilers are proprietary and USUALLY optimize much better than gcc. (I don't think that anyone has done a recent set of benchmarks of Apple's latest improvements of gcc v. current Metrowerks compiler though...) ...and now that I'm thinking of it most OSes of recent years, free AND proprietary seem to come with some sort of gcc based plus IDE dev tools any more anyways, e.g. BeOS, *Linux, *BSD, OSX, MacOS 7.5-9.x etc. On top of this didn't M$ used to have pretty decent pricing(surprisingly) for VC++/dev studio only anyways? (It's been a while since I've bothered to check.)

Re:MS seems to be doing a lot of this lately... (2, Informative)

Artega VH (739847) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896684)

For OSX dev tools come free on the software update cds.

xcode, interface builder and more.

also see The Fink Project [sourceforge.net]

A Song and a Thought..... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8896584)

Anus area sweet,
Its a comin' down the street.
Now, I ask you very confidentially,
Anus area sweet.

(sung ot teh tune of ain't she sweet)

Why is it that every fat spanish teacher has twin towers big as an Alabama town? /Discuss

Re:A Song and a Thought..... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8896591)

Because they're fat? Duh.

Not needed (4, Interesting)

sweet cunny muffin (771671) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896587)

I develop software for Windows using MinGW and MSys. They provide everything I need for development, apart from the IDE, and this release from Microsoft doesn't include that. The Visual C++ compiler is good, but it isn't extrordinary. Why use it over the open source MinGW tools?

Re:Not needed (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8896610)

There's a decent free IDE available called Dev-C++ [bloodshed.net] for windows, it comes with mingw32 ofcourse.

Re:Not needed (4, Informative)

lpontiac (173839) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896633)

  • Microsoft's compiler produces better (smaller, faster) x86 code than GCC.
  • I get the impression that when you move above vanilla C code (eg C++, libraries distributed in binary form only), different compilers don't play so nicely. (Just like gcc 2.9x versus gcc 3.x). And most of the binary only stuff out there on Windows is compiled with Visual C++.

How about some evidence? (4, Insightful)

enosys (705759) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896699)

I was going to ask about "why get this if there's MinGW [mingw.org] " but I see it's already been asked. I suspected someone would say Microsoft's compiler produces better code. Now where's the evidence? I'm looking for something like independent benchmarks or studying of generated code.

Re:Not needed (1)

martingunnarsson (590268) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896638)

Because it's more straight-forward than installing MinGW/MSys?

Re:Not needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8896676)

Oh, so this comes with all the crossplatfrom tools like autoconf, automake, libtool, make (the real deal, not nmake), bash, sed, awk, etc.

Thought not, that's why mingw with minsys or cygwin is a superior build enviroment.

But it might be possible to use this compiler in a crossplatform build system within minsys.

Re:Not needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8896726)

The command line tools that come with Windows do just fine. Just because you don't know the cmd.exe scripting language and apps doesn't mean they're inferior.

Re:Not needed (5, Insightful)

tesmako (602075) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896677)

Because it starts to feel like I have wasted several years of my life waiting for g++ by now. g++ is probably the slowest compiler I have ever used.

Yes! (5, Funny)

Flingles (698457) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896589)

"tried to make Visual C++ more conformant to the ISO C++ standard"

Score one for the team! Microsoft conformed to something!

Re:Yes! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8896618)

try {
std::standards.conform(VisualC++, ISOC++);
}
catch (nonstd::ConformanceFailureException cf) {
/* We are here */
cout << "Damn!" << endl;
this.serve(FreeCompiler);
}

Re:Yes! (4, Funny)

nukey56 (455639) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896668)

Seems firmiliar.. ahh yes.

Goth Kid #3: "I'm the biggest non-conformist!"
Goth Kid #4: "I'm such a non-conformist, that I'm not going to conform with the rest of you. I'll do it!"

Read on (1)

MongooseCN (139203) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896701)

You forgot to read on past that quote:

"tried to make Visual C++ more conformant to the ISO C++ standard... Note, must now buy out all members of the C++ ISO standards development team."

Re:Yes! (2, Insightful)

naden (206984) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896721)

Heh, sounds like this has confirmed to another standard. The standard way to fsck your competitors:

"Embrace and extend"

My experience with VC++ (1, Interesting)

kryptkpr (180196) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896590)

I'm taking an intermediate level C course as part of my studies.. Me and my classmates primary used the free Borland C Compiler (BCC32 5.5.1) and our TAs, the ones marking our work, were primarily using VC++.

Borland's Compiler is much more liberal about not only the syntax it allows, but what code works.. It takes a lot more effort to get things to work in VC++ (whereas they worked fine in BCC and GCC) and we've had lots of trouble stemming from this.

Microsoft can keep their compiler as far as I'm concerned.. although it (usually) comes with a nice IDE and Debugger that I quite like, it's just too bad those remain non-free.

Anyone know where to get a free visual debugger for Win32?

Re:My experience with VC++ (5, Insightful)

sweet cunny muffin (771671) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896605)

So you write shit code that doesn't fit the standards ("liberal" code), your shitty compiler doesn't notice and compiles it anyway, and then it's Microsoft's fault when their standards conforming compiler won't compile it?

Re:My experience with VC++ (1)

Knetzar (698216) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896653)

Name one compiler that completely follows the standard. I don't think one exists.

Also, I think the gp was mainly trying to express...how much easier it will be now that he can use the same compiler as those who grade him. Which raises a question, why are they grading you with a tool that they aren't providing? Or is it that they provide it in the labs but people want to work at home?

Re:My experience with VC++ (1)

kryptkpr (180196) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896655)

My code was quite standards compliant, and the problem is not compiling it.. it compiled fine in every C compiler I've tried.

Every one of them produced a working binary, except VC++ ..

can't believe I am doing this, but... (2, Interesting)

TamMan2000 (578899) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896685)

Give an example of something you should be able to do (not something you could get away with elsewhere) that you can't do with vcc.

Re:can't believe I am doing this, but... (2, Informative)

kryptkpr (180196) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896733)

I don't have VC++ installed, so I'm afraid I cannot cite very specific examples. Most of my troubles came from pointers (big surprise there), and if I recall correctly calloc() would randomly fail to initialize allocated memory. I also recall being angry that I cannot sizeof() a row vector in a 2D array, but sizeof() on a 1D array works fine.

Most of my trouble likely came from being a n00b to the language, and coming from a Pascal background I don't quite like the way C does a few things things (like multi-dimensional arrays, and pass by reference).. but using VC++ made learning even harder, becuase stuff would just mysteriously fail to work post-compilation that worked fine on other compilers.

(Disclamier: never touched C++ with even a 40 ft stick, and was using an older version of VC++, I think it was 4)

Re:My experience with VC++ (0, Troll)

samhalliday (653858) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896666)

gcc not standards compliant? well it might not be 100% C++ ISO yet, but its a hell of a lot closer than the M$ equivalent!! (if the grandparent was JUST using BCC, i would agree wholeheartedly with you)

Re:My experience with VC++ (1, Redundant)

Wumpus (9548) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896606)

You could try Dev-C++ [bloodshed.net]

Re:My experience with VC++ (1)

Wumpus (9548) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896625)

I should mention that Dev-C++ uses the GNU toolchain as its back end, and won't work with the Borland compiler. You should probably consider using a more standards compliant compiler for school work, anyway.

Re:My experience with VC++ (5, Informative)

startup.cmd (765643) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896659)

Anyone know where to get a free visual debugger for Win32?

MS provides the Debugging Tools for Windows [microsoft.com] as a free download. GUI and command line debuggers are included.

goes both ways... (2, Funny)

TamMan2000 (578899) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896661)

I recently started doing development for linux and XP. Before that it was Sun (using CC) and linux.

CL (the vcc compiler) will let you get away with things that you shouldn't even be able to do (use of variables outside of there scope...), but you don't see it, because BCC didn't let you do it.

CC was the most liberal of them all, it would complile and run your email.

All of this said, strick is a good thing! I means that your code will work elsewhere (wide variety of elsewheres) with little work. Are you using -wall and -pedantic with gcc?

Re:goes both ways... (1)

kryptkpr (180196) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896683)

Are you using -wall and -pedantic with gcc?

No, I'm not.. I didn't even know those existed. Although I do recall seeing -wall all over the place when compiling some FOSS and thinking to myself I should look into what that means..

I'm still new to C (coming from a Pascal background), and this language scares me.. I feel as if I'm yielding just a little more power then a programmer _should_ have access to for writing queues, linked lists, and 50 different sorting algorithms (damn Algorithms class).

Re:goes both ways... (5, Funny)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896724)

CC was the most liberal of them all, it would complile and run your email.

This highlights once again how Windows is a more flexible and modern development platform than Un*x. With Windows, email can be run automatically and remotely, without the need for a separate compilation step.

Free IDE for windows (1, Informative)

boffy_b (699458) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896737)

Dev C++ http://dcplusplus.sourceforge.net/

Microsoft offers interoperatibility? (3, Interesting)

plj (673710) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896592)

Something here makes me doubtful... has anyone here examined tthat EULA already? Are there any paragraphs, which try to limit compiling and/or redistibuting GPL et. al. -licensed FOSS programs?

Re:Microsoft offers interoperatibility? (1)

Amiga Lover (708890) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896603)

Wasn't there a compiler a few years ago that not only had an EULA which limited the type of code you could write, but also claimed some ownership of the code by the compiler vendor?

My memory is sketchy, so it may have been something else entirely, perhaps a code repository of some kind

Re:Microsoft offers interoperatibility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8896628)

Kia had a compiler released for MacOS 7 in the mid 1990s. If you sold the binaries created with it commercially you were required to pay a certain percentage back to Kia based on the sales. Of course it failed quickly. It was a good IDE and getting around the license seemed easy enough by developing on Kia and using another compiler to create the final product.

Re:Microsoft offers interoperatibility? (1)

nkh (750837) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896696)

Isn't this kind of licence forbidden by the law? IANAL but I've read that in France, every source code written (with VC++ for example) and every binaries produced through compilation belonged exclusively to you (the programmer)...

Re:Microsoft offers interoperatibility? (2, Informative)

sploo22 (748838) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896614)

As usual, they won't let you view the license before you download it.

Re:Microsoft offers interoperatibility? (1)

shadowkoder (707230) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896741)

I'm suprised this got moderated so high. No offense, but it seems like flaimbait to me. If Microsoft ever did something like that, the Open Source community would viciously open that wound and pour as much salt (press) on it as possible.

This is a Good Thing(TM) (3, Interesting)

El Cubano (631386) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896595)

I personally have no love for MS, but I can't help seeing this as a good thing for people that have to support the legacy windows platform.

I recently did some reasearch in AI, and one of the things I did was port an existing simulation written by a former student at my university from a VB/MS Powerpoint front end with BC++ core, to an OpenGL/wxWindows (now wxWidgets) frontend with ISO C++ core.

To establish a baseline I had to make comparisons on the Win32 platfrom. What really amazed me was the difference in efficiency and memory footprint between the VC++.NET 2003 compiler and gcc 3.3.

Although gcc is an excellent compiler, I don't think anyone can argue that MS has the inside track on optimizing Win32 apps.

Re:This is a Good Thing(TM) (1)

Mysteray (713473) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896613)

To establish a baseline I had to make comparisons on the Win32 platfrom. What really amazed me was the difference in efficiency and memory footprint between the VC++.NET 2003 compiler and gcc 3.3. Although gcc is an excellent compiler, I don't think anyone can argue that MS has the inside track on optimizing Win32 apps.

Could you clarify for me which one you found to be better?

compile time security checks (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8896596)

They have also made available their security check [microsoft.com] toolkit.

Too bad open source doesn't have something similar... maybe then we wouldn't have had so many high-profile compromises of Linux sites like savannah, debian, etc...

I suppose Electric Fence and Valgrind don't count (2, Interesting)

BitwizeGHC (145393) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896680)

I know I've used efence to find some nasty, tricksy segfault problems in game programs I've written. Microsoft's "security check" software doesn't really check for security; it checks for memory errors that could lead to security issues in the future, as well as other problems.

Re:compile time security checks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8896687)

w00t! A security check toolkit by possibly the least secure software vendor in the mass-market. Your post is a transparent troll by someone who clearly knows nothing about what open source software is actually available.

platform SDK (5, Informative)

halfdan the black (638018) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896598)

The platform SDK which includes the command line compiler, linker and debugger has allways been a free download (hasn't it). Also, the .net SDK which includes all the languages, libraries, and compilers has also allways been a free download, this is what sharp develop uses.

Re:platform SDK (3, Informative)

sweet cunny muffin (771671) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896611)

The command line C++ compiler was never included in the SDK. The C# compiler and so on were, however.

Re:platform SDK (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8896612)

The difference here is that this compiler is "optimizing".

I know alot of windows game developers use the MS IDEs and compilers, so this _is_ useful.

Re:platform SDK (2, Informative)

Danster (90773) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896654)

The platform SDK which includes the command line compiler, linker and debugger has allways been a free download (hasn't it). Also, the .net SDK which includes all the languages, libraries, and compilers has also allways been a free download, this is what sharp develop uses.

Not quite.

The Platform SDK ships the 12.00.880 version of the VC++ compiler, which roughly corresponds to the 2002 version of Visual Studio .NET.

This release is the 13.10.3077 version which corresponds to the current version of the environment -- Visual Studio .NET 2003.

So no, not quite the same thing.

Re:platform SDK (1)

Danster (90773) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896712)

(Sorry, replying to myself -- bad form, I know.)

Actually, I goofed: the PSDK does not, in fact, ship with a C++ compiler. Both the parent and grandparent are wrong in varying ways.

(Setting the PSDK environment picked up the compiler executable from Visual Studio .NET 2002 -- fooling me into thinking it was part of the PSDK.)

huh? (3, Funny)

Knights who say 'INT (708612) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896615)

Go Forth?

But isn't it a C compiler?

What next, Visual PL/I?

Re:huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8896723)

Go Forth?

Will you marry me?

Awesome (3, Interesting)

Ryvar (122400) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896622)

Finally Microsoft makes a move I really agree with - between this, GIMP, and Blender anybody can make a decent game for Windows without spending a dime on tools. Very nice indeed.

Clippy's response to compiling OSS (5, Funny)

foidulus (743482) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896623)

Clippy: "It looks like you are trying to compile the gimp, did you know the GPL was written by Carl Marx, you don't want to be un-American do you? If you need help embracing capitalism, please ask me."

Re:Clippy's response to compiling OSS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8896630)

Carl Marx

Is a Carl Marx anything like a Hot Carl?

Moron.

Re:Clippy's response to compiling OSS (1)

sydb (176695) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896702)

That's 'K' - Karl Marx.

Re:Clippy's response to compiling OSS (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8896736)


That's 'K' - Karl Marx.


No, no. This is the Gnome version, not the KDE one.

crack is free first time (4, Interesting)

mabu (178417) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896626)

This looks like an aggressive effort to get people to start developing .NET apps since a major part of the free download includes support for .NET.

One has to assume MS is worried they're losing their development community to run a scheme like this.

Microsoft Had A Change of Heart? No. (2, Interesting)

Famatra (669740) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896627)

Did Microsoft have a change of heart? Probably not, this is probably either a part of the anti-trust case against them in which they promised to make their software more interoperable, or it is to stave off anti-trust case part 2.

wow, good job microsoft! (2, Informative)

timecop (16217) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896632)

This is absolutely awesome.

While there were legal methods to obtain optimizing compilers before (you could order media-cost-only Windows 2003 DDK cdrom and with that you'd have vc++ 7.0 compilers), but with this kit there's no longer any problems.

While VS.NET 7.1/2003 IDE is quite well developed, I'm sure projects such as eclipse or dev-c++ can benefit from this.

Also notice the important thing about this kit is it includes optimizing compilers, free command-line tools which were available for a while from the Microsoft .NET framework SDK did not have optimization command-line options enabled.

Before this, there were ways to obtain the optimizing version of vc++ compilers, by ordering a recent Windows 2003 DDK (it included vs.net 7.0 compilers, if I remember correctly). But now with this kit,

EULA? (4, Interesting)

nukey56 (455639) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896634)

From linked site:
Are there any restrictions on how I use the Visual C++ Toolkit?


In general, no. You may use the Toolkit to build C++ -based applications, and you may redistribute those applications. Please read the End User License Agreement (EULA), included with the Toolkit, for complete details.

From the EULA.... Oh wait, I'd have to waste half an hour downloading the compiler to read it. I'm sure there's an evil clause in there. Best thing I could find relating to VS.net runtimes was this old gem:

You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of the .NET Framework component of the OS Components to any third party without MicrosoftÃÂ's prior written approval.

Use at your own discretion.

Re:EULA? (1)

phy_si_kal (729421) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896707)

This is appears to be frequent in close-sourced corporate world. Oracle does it too. They don't want anyone to advertise he's faster...

Re:EULA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8896711)

> Are there any restrictions on how I use the Visual C++ Toolkit?

> In general, no. [...]

So, anyone compiled Linux with this yet?

Yes, but... (3, Funny)

heironymouscoward (683461) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896647)

Does it run on Linux?

Do I still want to write non-portable code in 2004? Apparently MSVC produces better code then gcc on Windows, but is that reason enough to use it rather than (e.g.) cygwin?

As a programmer, I insist on platforms that are 100% portable, so that my code can survive any OS and vendor changes. At the very least a commercial compiler must implement the standard language and libraries so that my code is portable.

Still, this is a good move for Microsoft and I welcome it.

Re:Yes, but... (2)

tesmako (602075) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896692)

Making sure your code is portable is one very good reason to use the microsoft compiler on Windows. Compile with gcc on Linux and Microsofts compiler on Windows and you will catch more bugs in the long run.

Re:Yes, but... (2, Funny)

nukey56 (455639) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896694)

The day Microsoft releases a real cross compiler is the day I'm going to add a layer onto this here foil hat of mine...

No lib.exe (3, Informative)

Asmodeus (10868) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896672)

Major omission - no lib.exe for building .a files

Looks like this is just to encourage people to migrate to .NET as without lib.exe it is pretty useless for larger projects.

Still, nice of them to release it

Asmo

Nice move (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8896674)

As a university student I can get VS.NET2003 Pro with the optimizing compiler for free anyway, but this is a good thing. Please OSS people, don't shy away from it, but use it to compile all opensource apps for Windows for even better efficiency and smaller size helping the popularity of apps like Firefox and Thunderbird and whatever. This compiler really does kick ass.

Why do I see this as something bad? (1)

MagiGraphX (767644) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896691)

Either this came from an anti-trust settlement, or Microsoft is trying to pull something wicked, again. It's not usual for them to offer something free, at least, not something they made money off of.

Very wierd.
My senses tell me that something isn't right.

Suits me just fine.. (4, Interesting)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896700)

...I've been using MS VC and eVC to build code under Winblows and Wince for a long time. I use GNU make under Cygwin with a bunch of fancy default rules.

Having this compiler released means that
a) I don't have to install that confusing GUI
b) I don't have to cough up the money to upgrade (Currently running VC 5.0) ..the MS compiler is actually not that bad, and you're stuck with at least *SOME* MS tools if you want interoperatibility with other MS tools. MIDL interfaces (formerly ODL), for one.

I write library code under UNIX in C, debug it in a sane environment (100% GNU, except for Xemacs) and then port it to Windows (generally pretty trivial -- I port by making Windows look like POSIX, so the UNIX codebase stays basically virgin). Run it through MIDL to get a type library, and all of a sudden your stupid VB developers developing one-off, simple GUIs have access to all kinds of well-debugged code that was originally developed on a sane platform.

As long as your code only touches files or sockets, it will run okay under MS VC.

slightly OT, but chance to ask a question (1)

rokzy (687636) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896710)

how good are the gcc compilers compared with non-free ones?

is the difference in the time it takes to compile, or will the binaries also run faster?

Port to Linux (2, Interesting)

crow (16139) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896717)

The reports are that this compiler produces better code than GCC (only for x86, of course). How hard would it be to use something like Wine to run it under Linux to compile Linux applications? Would that be a violation of the license?

Then we just need a version of Autoconf that builds a makefile for the compiler of your choice (gcc, icc, or mscc).

More standards compliant? (0, Troll)

lkaos (187507) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896718)

especially since Microsoft has tried to make Visual C++ more conformant to the ISO C++ standard

More ISO conformant? Compared to what? The GNU Fortan77 compiler?

Seriously though, VC++ didn't even support member templates until 6.0. I'm not that familiar with VS.NET, but I know before that there ISO bordered between horrible and pathetic.

In all fairness, I've been told it's not there fault. Something to do with litigation or something.

At any rate, I think this statement of "more standards complaint" certainly could be explained a bit more (especially in terms of how are they more compliant than say, a C++ compiler built with EDG).

STL would be proof (-1, Troll)

mattyp (720004) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896722)

Microsoft will prove their honest intentions when STL programs work. They broke them on purpose.

STL works and has worked for a LONG time... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8896735)

...so can you give me some of what you're smoking?

Re:STL would be proof (1)

tc (93768) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896740)

Uh, why would Microsoft break STL programs on purpose? How would that benefit them?

Code Size! (3, Interesting)

parryFromIndia (687708) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896725)

I compiled the Conformance sample that came with it - Once with G++ [3.3.1] -O2 and once with cl /O2 /EHsc and noticed the huge code size differences - CL == text data bss dec hex filename 76892 8192 0 85084 14c5c conformance.exe G++ == text data bss dec hex filename 200508 1992 19088 221588 36194 a.exe That's horrible code generation from G++. It can't be so bad. Parry

Did you strip the symbols out? (1)

aksansai (56788) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896739)

GNU's compiler puts heavyweight, albeit extraordinarily useful, symbols for debugging and profiling in their executables. When optimizing, Microsoft's compiler will not add any debugging symbols to the executable. Did you run strip on the G++ generated executable?

At risk of karma... (1)

theblacksun (523754) | more than 10 years ago | (#8896731)

How convienent. I've been stuck in windows for quite some time now (Once the semester's over I'll get to it. I just have too many more priorities now. Like slashdot...) The one thing I miss most is my C compiler....

I do have ssh and a couple of shells, but it couldn't hurt too much to keep up my Windows skills. I am forced to use it at work everyday.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...