C::B with DM or vc++?

[takeshimiya]

It's here: http://forums.next.codeblocks.org/index.php?topic=2085.0

C::B has been compiled with MSVC and Intel compilers with few one-time changes.

[killerbot]

My personal opinion :
- OFFICIAL CB is compiled with GCC and reamins that way ( see  remarks of Yiannis)
- let's try to help the people who try to build CB with other compilers (other mostly true warnings/ errors) --> always good to compile with everal compilers
- if people see a more 'optimized' build of CB can be obtained by using another compiler they can build it themselves (they just get the sources and make it themselves), choice is a good thing, but maintaining CB distributions with different compilers is a bit to much for the CB team, but every user can then however create on his/her self.
Note don't focus too much on the build time of CB itself only ( I rather compile it with a slow compiler to have in the end a fast CB application, then have it compile super quick and ending up with a slow CB)

Good luck with this further research, very interesting !!!

Cheers,
Lieven

[Trikko]

Anyway, have a look at here.

DM passes 100% of dr. dobbs tests

http://www.digitalmars.com/changelog.html#new845

ehehhehe

[Trikko]

It's here: http://forums.next.codeblocks.org/index.php?topic=2085.0

C::B has been compiled with MSVC and Intel compilers with few one-time changes.

Why didn't C::B developer apply this patches to official distro?

[takeshimiya]

Why didn't C::B developer apply this patches to official distro?

I think Sam didn't posted the patches on the tracker.

I agree with Lieven here.

[sethjackson]

Anyway, have a look at here.

DM passes 100% of dr. dobbs tests

http://www.digitalmars.com/changelog.html#new845

ehehhehe

Umm DM isn't on the list (show me where I can't find it) and guess what that was done in November 2003. The GCC proposed candidate passed  99.11%, and the test (what they testing I can't even tell) was done 2 years ago.  Hmm I think GCC is waaaay better now.....

EDIT:

Oh and BTW the proposed GCC candidate passed more of the "test" than M$ VC......  :lol:

Have a look here like Michael said.

http://cmeerw.org/prog/freecpp/

[thomas]

Nobody doubts that DM compiles a lot faster.
However, as far as those benchmarks are concerned, those are simply hilarious. The floating point math comparison even more than the wxWidgets one.

Why didn't C::B developer apply this patches to official distro?

I think Sam didn't posted the patches on the tracker.
I agree with Lieven here.

It does not matter whether he did or not. Those patches will not be applied.

Nevertheless, if you believe that you have to compile using MSVC, then feel free to do that. However, if you get strange errors like Sam is getting, then don't come here and complain...

[Michael]

Anyway, have a look at here.

DM passes 100% of dr. dobbs tests

http://www.digitalmars.com/changelog.html#new845

ehehhehe

The GCC version I have tested at that time (3.4.4) passed 2 or 3 more tests :wink:. Imagine version 4.1......

Anyway, I do n ot want to begin a compiler's war .

Best wishes,
Michael

[sethjackson]

The GCC version I have tested at that time (3.4.4) passed 2 or 3 more tests :wink:. Imagine version 4.1......

Anyway, I do n ot want to begin a compiler's war .

Best wishes,
Michael

We have almost have a few already (in other threads) I think......  :lol: It is always funny how people compare new compilers to an old version of GCC......

[takeshimiya]

Imagine version 4.1......

4.1 haves lot's of regressions on Win32, so it's quite the opossite for now.

I think Sam didn't posted the patches on the tracker.
I agree with Lieven here.

It does not matter whether he did or not. Those patches will not be applied.

It's quite the opossite, what matters is that patches aren't deleted on the tracker, so other people that is interested in doing so can do it by applying them. If they're applied to codebase or not, it's just a matter of convenience to official builds.

[thomas]

It is always funny how people compare new compilers to an old version of GCC......

I'd not call it funny. It is actually quite embarassing.
Imagine you compared a 1950 car to a 2005 car. Everybody would yell "bloody fool" at you... :lol:

It gets even more embarassing when things like floating point throughput are taken as a measure to compare compilers in terms of application performance. Unless you write something like a realtime MP3 encoder, this is absolutely irrelevant to you (and in that case, you would code the SSE stuff by hand, anyway).
A typical, "normal" GUI application is idle 95%-98% of the time, and it rarely ever uses a floating point operation at all.

The one and only thing that really uses significant CPU in Code::Blocks is the code completion plugin, and that is due to a somewhat unlucky parsing algorithm, not due to compiler-related issues.

[takeshimiya]

I think that discussing that one compiler or language is better than other, in an IDE that haves multi-compiler multi-language support, is only going to hurt.

[Michael]

I think that discussing that one compiler or language is better than other, in an IDE that haves multi-compiler support, is only going to hurt.

Yes, you are right. It can cause problems. Anyway, IMHO the discussion could be divided into two parts: (1) the compiler used to build C::B and (2) the compiler used to build your application. For example, I like GCC and I hate M$ compiler. If C::B were built with M$, what I will do.......Well, I think that I will used it anyway, but building my applications with GCC .

Best wishes,
Michael

[Trikko]

Nobody doubts that DM compiles a lot faster.
However, as far as those benchmarks are concerned, those are simply hilarious. The floating point math comparison even more than the wxWidgets one.

I've just underlined that i was speaking about math...

[mandrav]

I think Sam didn't posted the patches on the tracker.
I agree with Lieven here.

It does not matter whether he did or not. Those patches will not be applied.

It's quite the opossite, what matters is that patches aren't deleted on the tracker, so other people that is interested in doing so can do it by applying them. If they're applied to codebase or not, it's just a matter of convenience to official builds.

Thomas said what I said a few posts up: patches for supporting builds with other compilers will not be accepted.

BUT

The fact that we may reject the patch, does not mean that it is deleted from the patch tracker. The patch will always be there for anyone to try and apply, if he/she needs to. You just have to filter for "Any" patch, instead of "Open" ones