1. lcc-win32
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_00A9_01C2BC21.5F8353A0
charset="iso-8859-1"
Dear friends:
You write about my system (in your web pages):
>>
Translator and run-time library for Windows using LccWin C
LccWin is a free C compiler for 32-bit Windows. (5 Mb). Severe bugs have
been introduced in Lcc recently that render it almost useless for our
purposes. Until these bugs are fixed, we strongly recommend that you=20
download Borland instead. Lcc's -O optimization option is particularly
buggy. If you have any problems with Lcc, you should run emake.bat=20
again, but without the -O options. (But you really should consider using =
Borland or Watcom instead!).
<<
I would like to point out that:
1) I have never received a bug report from your part. At least I do not=20
remember.
2) If you do not like my system, I would recommend you to avoid using=20
it. Borland compilers, as you say in your web site, are much better.
3) I provide my system for free, at no obligation from my part. I try to =
improve my system as much as I can without writing any bugs, but as you=20
can see, I fail in this task, and I do make mistakes. The best thing is=20
to use tools that are not in this stage of development like Borland=20
tools, or that have a bigger budget and commercial surface than an=20
individual programmer will ever be able to achieve.
For all this reasons then, I propose that you take out lcc-win32 from=20
the list of supported C compilers. Why make me negative publicity? I do=20
what I can guys, probably as hard as you do.
jacob
------=_NextPart_000_00A9_01C2BC21.5F8353A0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1126" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New"><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman">Dear=20
friends:<BR><BR>You write about my system (in your web pages):<BR><FONT=20
face=3D"Courier New">>></FONT><BR>Translator and run-time library =
for=20
Windows using LccWin C<BR>LccWin is a free C compiler for 32-bit =
Windows. (5=20
Mb). Severe bugs have<BR>been introduced in Lcc recently that render it =
almost=20
useless for our<BR>purposes. Until these bugs are fixed, we strongly =
recommend=20
that you <BR>download Borland instead. Lcc's -O optimization option is=20
particularly<BR>buggy. If you have any problems with Lcc, you should run =
emake.bat <BR>again, but without the -O options. (But you really should =
consider=20
using <BR>Borland or Watcom instead!).<BR><FONT=20
face=3D"Courier New"><<</FONT><BR></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New"><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman">I would =
like to point=20
out that:<BR>1) I have never received a bug report from your part. At =
least I do=20
not <BR>remember.<BR><BR>2) If you do not like my system, I would =
recommend you=20
to avoid using <BR>it. Borland compilers, as you say in your web =
site, are=20
much better.<BR><BR>3) I provide my system for free, at no obligation =
from my=20
part. I try to <BR>improve my system as much as I can without writing =
any bugs,=20
but as you <BR>can see, I fail in this task, and I do make mistakes. The =
best=20
thing is <BR>to use tools that are not in this stage of development like =
Borland=20
<BR>tools, or that have a bigger budget and commercial surface than an=20
<BR>individual programmer will ever be able to achieve.<BR><BR>For all =
this=20
reasons then, I propose that you take out lcc-win32 from <BR>the list of =
supported C compilers. Why make me negative publicity? I do <BR>what I =
can guys,=20
probably as hard as you do.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New"><FONT=20
face=3D"Courier New"></FONT></FONT> </DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier =
New"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">
------=_NextPart_000_00A9_01C2BC21.5F8353A0--
2. Re: lcc-win32
----- Original Message -----
From: jacob at jacob.remcomp.fr
Subject: lcc-win32
Dear friends:
You write about my system (in your web pages):
>>
Translator and run-time library for Windows using LccWin C
LccWin is a free C compiler for 32-bit Windows. (5 Mb). Severe bugs have
been introduced in Lcc recently that render it almost useless for our
purposes. Until these bugs are fixed, we strongly recommend that you
download Borland instead. Lcc's -O optimization option is particularly
buggy. If you have any problems with Lcc, you should run emake.bat
again, but without the -O options. (But you really should consider using
Borland or Watcom instead!).
<<
I would like to point out that:
1) I have never received a bug report from your part. At least I do not
remember.
:: When we omit the -0, the compiler works perfect, which is what i need.
Besides, its free and is not command-line.
2) If you do not like my system, I would recommend you to avoid using.
:: No one said they didnot want it. its just that people wanted to know if
it was a translator bug or the compiler. Besides, you compiler the one i
downloaded in August worked fine with -o switch. When the translator(new
version) was introduced pple wondered why it wasn't working.
it. Borland compilers, as you say in your web site, are much better.
3) I provide my system for free, at no obligation from my part. I try to
improve my system as much as I can without writing any bugs, but as you
can see, I fail in this task, and I do make mistakes.
:: we as programmers all make mistakes, those times come and go
The best thing is
to use tools that are not in this stage of development like Borland
tools, or that have a bigger budget and commercial surface than an
individual programmer will ever be able to achieve.
For all this reasons then, I propose that you take out lcc-win32 from
the list of supported C compilers. Why make me negative publicity? I do
what I can guys, probably as hard as you do.
:: Negative publicity:: That is not negative publicity, pple are just being
advised on how to make it work.Sorry, if u see that as a bad thing.
jordah
jacob
TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
3. Re: lcc-win32
- Posted by cgibin at bellsouth.net
Jan 14, 2003
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0036_01C2BBF4.96C36F80
charset="iso-8859-1"
Hello Jacob,
I have dozens of programs that are translated w/Euphoria and compiled =
with LCCWin
that run perfectly. I believe that most of the problems are due to the =
inexperience of
the Euphoria programmer to write API code. There is a library named =
Win32lib that
alot of people use and because its still in very early stages of =
development LCC wont
compile it correctly (this is not an LCC issue). I have (myself) =
submitted a bug to=20
Robert Craig (Euphoria Author) that dealt with a bug that was Euphoria's =
fault not LCCWin.=20
Ive made suggestions to Robert Craig in the past to clean up the LCC =
translated code
and hopefully this will happen in Euphoria's next version.
I wish that Robert Craig would submit bug fixes as fast as you! LCC is a =
great tool and I
personally will continue to use the compiler. There is one problem with =
submitting bugs to
you that are related to Euphoria, have you seen the C-code output from =
the Euphoria
translator? its a complete mess!
Regards,
Euman / Xanax / Who / Unknown / cgibin
----- Original Message -----=20
From: jacob at jacob.remcomp.fr=20
To: EUforum=20
Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 5:05 PM
Subject: lcc-win32
Dear friends:
You write about my system (in your web pages):
>>
Translator and run-time library for Windows using LccWin C
LccWin is a free C compiler for 32-bit Windows. (5 Mb). Severe bugs =
have
been introduced in Lcc recently that render it almost useless for our
purposes. Until these bugs are fixed, we strongly recommend that you=20
download Borland instead. Lcc's -O optimization option is particularly
buggy. If you have any problems with Lcc, you should run emake.bat=20
again, but without the -O options. (But you really should consider =
using=20
Borland or Watcom instead!).
<<
I would like to point out that:
1) I have never received a bug report from your part. At least I do =
not=20
remember.
2) If you do not like my system, I would recommend you to avoid using=20
it. Borland compilers, as you say in your web site, are much better.
3) I provide my system for free, at no obligation from my part. I try =
to=20
improve my system as much as I can without writing any bugs, but as =
you=20
can see, I fail in this task, and I do make mistakes. The best thing =
is=20
to use tools that are not in this stage of development like Borland=20
tools, or that have a bigger budget and commercial surface than an=20
individual programmer will ever be able to achieve.
For all this reasons then, I propose that you take out lcc-win32 from=20
the list of supported C compilers. Why make me negative publicity? I =
do=20
what I can guys, probably as hard as you do.
jacob
TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
------=_NextPart_000_0036_01C2BBF4.96C36F80
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1126" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hello Jacob,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I have dozens of programs that are =
translated=20
w/Euphoria and compiled with LCCWin</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>that run perfectly. I believe that most =
of the=20
problems are due to the inexperience of</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>the Euphoria programmer to write API =
code. There is=20
a library named Win32lib that</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>alot of people use and because its =
still in very=20
early stages of development LCC wont</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>compile it correctly (this is not an =
LCC issue). I=20
have (myself) submitted a bug to </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Robert Craig (Euphoria Author) that =
dealt with=20
</FONT><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>a bug that was Euphoria's fault not =
LCCWin.=20
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Ive made suggestions to Robert Craig in =
the past to=20
clean up the LCC translated code</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>and hopefully this will happen in =
Euphoria's next=20
version.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I wish that Robert Craig would submit =
bug fixes as=20
fast as you! LCC is a great tool and I</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>personally will continue to use the =
compiler. There=20
is one problem with submitting bugs to</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>you that are related to Euphoria, have =
you seen the=20
C-code output from the Euphoria</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>translator? its a complete =
mess!</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Euman / Xanax / Who / Unknown / =
cgibin</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3Djacob at jacob.remcomp.fr=20
href=3D"mailto:jacob at jacob.remcomp.fr">jacob at jacob.remcomp.fr</A> =
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=3DEUforum at topica.com=20
href=3D"mailto:EUforum at topica.com">EUforum</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, January 14, 2003 =
5:05=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> lcc-win32</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><PRE>=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D The Euphoria =
Mailing List =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=20
</PRE>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New"><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman">Dear=20
friends:<BR><BR>You write about my system (in your web =
pages):<BR><FONT=20
face=3D"Courier New">>></FONT><BR>Translator and run-time =
library for=20
Windows using LccWin C<BR>LccWin is a free C compiler for 32-bit =
Windows. (5=20
Mb). Severe bugs have<BR>been introduced in Lcc recently that render =
it almost=20
useless for our<BR>purposes. Until these bugs are fixed, we strongly =
recommend=20
that you <BR>download Borland instead. Lcc's -O optimization option is =
particularly<BR>buggy. If you have any problems with Lcc, you should =
run=20
emake.bat <BR>again, but without the -O options. (But you really =
should=20
consider using <BR>Borland or Watcom instead!).<BR><FONT=20
face=3D"Courier New"><<</FONT><BR></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New"><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman">I would =
like to=20
point out that:<BR>1) I have never received a bug report from your =
part. At=20
least I do not <BR>remember.<BR><BR>2) If you do not like my system, I =
would=20
recommend you to avoid using <BR>it. Borland compilers, as you =
say in=20
your web site, are much better.<BR><BR>3) I provide my system for =
free, at no=20
obligation from my part. I try to <BR>improve my system as much as I =
can=20
without writing any bugs, but as you <BR>can see, I fail in this task, =
and I=20
do make mistakes. The best thing is <BR>to use tools that are not in =
this=20
stage of development like Borland <BR>tools, or that have a bigger =
budget and=20
commercial surface than an <BR>individual programmer will ever be able =
to=20
achieve.<BR><BR>For all this reasons then, I propose that you take out =
lcc-win32 from <BR>the list of supported C compilers. Why make me =
negative=20
publicity? I do <BR>what I can guys, probably as hard as you=20
do.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier New"><FONT=20
face=3D"Courier New"></FONT></FONT> </DIV><FONT face=3D"Courier =
New"><FONT=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">
=
<DIV><BR>jacob</FONT><BR></DIV></FONT><PRE>=3D=3D^=3D=3D^=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
This email was sent to: cgibin at bellsouth.net
EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: <A =
href=3D"http://topica.com/u/?b1dd66.b3jnLE.Y2dpYmlu">http://topica.com/u/=
?b1dd66.b3jnLE.Y2dpYmlu</A>
Or send an email to: EUforum-unsubscribe at topica.com
TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
<A =
href=3D"http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html">http://ww=
w.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html</A>
=3D=3D^=3D=3D^=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
------=_NextPart_000_0036_01C2BBF4.96C36F80--
4. Re: lcc-win32
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 23:05:04 +0100, jacob at jacob.remcomp.fr wrote:
>
>Dear friends:
>
>You write about my system (in your web pages):
>>>
>Translator and run-time library for Windows using LccWin C
>LccWin is a free C compiler for 32-bit Windows. (5 Mb). Severe bugs have
>been introduced in Lcc recently that render it almost useless for our
>purposes. Until these bugs are fixed, we strongly recommend that you=20
>download Borland instead.
Thank you jacob, very kindly, for this honest advice.
> Lcc's -O optimization option is particularly
>buggy. If you have any problems with Lcc, you should run emake.bat=20
>again, but without the -O options. (But you really should consider using=
=20
>Borland or Watcom instead!).
><<
>
>I would like to point out that:
>1) I have never received a bug report from your part. At least I do not=20
>remember.
If that is so, we owe you a sincere apology. Rob, everyone, please
review your web pages, and at the very least report any problems found
(include the URL), and put [reported <date>] next to any even slightly
disparaging remark. As is only fair.
>2) If you do not like my system, I would recommend you to avoid using=20
>it. Borland compilers, as you say in your web site, are much better.
>
>3) I provide my system for free, at no obligation from my part. I try to=
=20
>improve my system as much as I can without writing any bugs, but as you=20
>can see, I fail in this task, and I do make mistakes.
One of the reasons I like Euphoria is that you can at least talk to
the author. I accept that I may well not get the answer I wanted, but
at least I get a straight no, or a much more accurate timescale; which
cannot be said for Borland, Microsoft, etc..
>The best thing is=20
>to use tools that are not in this stage of development like Borland=20
>tools, or that have a bigger budget and commercial surface than an=20
>individual programmer will ever be able to achieve.
If we had, as we obviously should have, granted you the simple
courtesy of reporting problems that should not necessarily be so.
(Euphoria is similarly a one-man-band effort, albeit older).
>
>For all this reasons then, I propose that you take out lcc-win32 from=20
>the list of supported C compilers.
>Why make me negative publicity? I do=20
>what I can guys, probably as hard as you do.
>
Rob, any chance of verifying this guy is who he claims, and if so
granting a free copy of the sources for testing? You never know, give
him enough rope, and he just might even beat watcom!
At the very least, you must have some ropey old pre-alpha version you
couldn't possibly be scared of anyone pirating...
Pete
5. Re: lcc-win32
Jacob writes:
> 1) I have never received a bug report from your part. At least I do not
> remember.
I e-mailed you but it bounced, so I submitted two bug reports
into the "Q" automatic tracking system. They are bugs #19284 and #19285.
These are not the only bugs I found, but they are really simple to
demonstrate with just a few lines of C code.
> 2) If you do not like my system, I would recommend you to avoid using
> it. Borland compilers, as you say in your web site, are much better.
Some Euphoria users like your system a lot,
so I will continue to support it.
I think it's fine for small to medium-sized human-written programs,
but for large, machine-generated C code it exhibits more
bugs than Borland or Watcom, so it makes my life more
difficult, since these bugs can take many hours to track down.
Machine-generated C code is different from human-generated.
For example, with the Lcc -O option turned on, I found that
a simple C statement like:
if (0 != 0) goto X;
was *always* going to label X.
The machine code generated by Lcc was wrong.
A human would not write code like that,
but the translator sometimes does.
In Euphoria version 2.4, I will no longer use the Lcc -O option
by default, but will leave it up to the user to add it in, at his own risk.
> Why make me negative publicity? I do what I can guys,
> probably as hard as you do.
I'm not trying to put down your efforts.
It's quite an achievement to develop and maintain
a C compiler. Borland and Watcom had scores of developers.
But from my point of view I want to encourage people
to use Borland or Watcom if possible. I'll get fewer bug reports,
and people will get faster-executing code with less chance of
frustration. Besides, I don't think there is such a thing as
"negative publicity". A lot of people have downloaded Lcc because
it was supported by the EtoC Translator. I hope Lcc will continue
to improve. If it starts working better on translated code, I'll be
happy to say so on my Web page.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
6. Re: lcc-win32
>
> Jacob writes:
> > 1) I have never received a bug report from your part. At least I do not
> > remember.
>
> I e-mailed you but it bounced, so I submitted two bug reports
> into the "Q" automatic tracking system. They are bugs #19284 and #19285.
>
19284 has been fixed, and an update version will be available tomorrow.
Problem was a cast to int instead of a cast to unsigned int in the
expression simplifier.
19285 was fixed several months ago (if (0!=0) goto X), I think end of
October or beginning of November last year
7. Re: lcc-win32
Jacob writes:
> 19284 has been fixed, and an update version will be available tomorrow.
> ...
> 19285 was fixed several months ago (if (0!=0) goto X),
> I think end of October or beginning of November last year
I downloaded and installed Lcc on October 30.
I'll try it again in a couple of days.
Thanks for the fixes.
I have a couple of other important Lcc bugs that I'll submit
if they haven't already been fixed.
I'd like to keep the Lcc -O flag as a default in emake.bat.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
