Re: compiler back-end development?

toby <toby@telegraphics.com.au>
Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:30:59 -0700 (PDT)

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[4 earlier articles]
Re: compiler back-end development? jacob@nospam.org (jacob navia) (2009-07-13)
Re: compiler back-end development? ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor) (2009-07-13)
Re: compiler back-end development? cr88192@hotmail.com (BGB) (2009-07-13)
Re: compiler back-end development? cr88192@hotmail.com (BGB / cr88192) (2009-07-14)
Re: compiler back-end development? rogers.email@gmail.com (Ian Rogers) (2009-07-14)
Re: compiler back-end development? cr88192@hotmail.com (BGB / cr88192) (2009-07-14)
Re: compiler back-end development? toby@telegraphics.com.au (toby) (2009-07-15)
Re: compiler back-end development? rogers.email@gmail.com (Ian Rogers) (2009-07-17)
Re: compiler back-end development? cr88192@hotmail.com (BGB / cr88192) (2009-07-17)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: toby <toby@telegraphics.com.au>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: Compilers Central
References: 09-07-013 09-07-015 09-07-020 09-07-026 09-07-033
Keywords: C
Posted-Date: 15 Jul 2009 19:25:47 EDT

On Jul 14, 10:30 am, "BGB / cr88192" <cr88...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "jacob navia" <ja...@nospam.org> wrote in message
> > BGB / cr88192 wrote:
>
> >> but, yes, it would be better to have GCC working, but for now I have
> >> ended
> >> up using MSVC as my backend (static) compiler (when doing 64-bit
> >> stuff...).
>
> > lcc-win64 has 64 bit support.
> ...
> GCC and MSVC are "safer" bets, although in this case, GCC exhibited some
> bugs that made me rather uncertain about using it, leading me to use MSVC
> despite it being much less convinient.


MS VC++ Express Edition (free-as-in-beer download) runs fine on Linux
under WINE, for any of its 32 or 64-bit targets. You can use make or
NMAKE to script builds, and even an IDE like Eclipse if the fancy
takes you.


--Toby


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.