From: ulittj00 AT mcl DOT ucsb DOT edu (Joshua Little) Subject: Fw: lcc-win32 vs. mingw32/gnuwin32 18 Jan 1998 11:32:21 -0800 Message-ID: <01bd14cb$219e9700$7ffd6f80.cygnus.gnu-win32@Slittj00.ucsb.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: -----Original Message----- From: Colin Peters To: Joshua J Little Date: Thursday, December 11, 1997 4:57 PM Subject: Re: lcc-win32 vs. mingw32/gnuwin32 >From: Joshua J Little >Date: Friday, December 12, 1997 9:29 AM > > >>Does anyone out there have any experience with the c compiler lcc for >>compiling vanilla win32 C code? It seems to make much smaller >>executables, compiles a lot faster, and, at least for the examples in >>Petzold's "Programming Windows 95," it compiles the code pretty much >right >>out-of-the-box, unlike mingw32 or gnuwin32. Are there any disadvantages >>to it that anyone knows of? Any advice anyone can offer? > > >I'm biased of course, and I only used it a little. :-) > >Basically the only major disadvantage that I can see is it doesn't do C++. >I'm spoiled and I can't write code in C anymore without complaining... > >I also think there is no debugger (yet)... but there might be one soon. >I'm also not sure of the status of making DLLs or even static libraries >with the compiler. Still, it is, as you say, fast, small, and very >compatible with MS code. It also has a resource editor and compiler built >in, which is a big lack for mingw32/gnuwin32 at this time. I think it is a >matter of personal preference, and what you are trying to do, as both >packages are incomplete right now. > >Colin. > >-- Colin Peters -- colin at fu.is.saga-u.ac.jp >-- Saga University Dept. of Information Science >-- http://www.fu.is.saga-u.ac.jp/~colin >-- http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Towers/6162 > > > - For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to "gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".