 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Right now I've been using Dev-Cpp for developing my modeler. It's
getting the job done.
The only real issue with Dev-Cpp is that the fine folks at bloodshed.net
haven't updated the compiler since 2005, whereas Watcom is still being
supported.
The primary issue I have with OpenWatcom is that apparently the floating
point library that comes with it doesn't include single-precision
version of the functions, only doubles. That isn't a show-stopper;
although the objects in my project which use floats use single-precision
values (a space issue, since there may be many thousands of them in a
project), the library doesn't get called that much, so the casting and
re-casting isn't hurting performance.
Watcom also has a feature that appears to be lacking in Dev-Cpp, which
is the warnings for unused local variables (not vital, but it's nice for
this former C64 programmer to know where a wasted byte may be lurking in
my code); so that's a point in its favor.
(As an aside, the IDE in lcc-win32 has a feature that flags unrecognized
symbols (by underlining them); that helped get typos fixed more quickly.)
The question I haven't answered yet is the code size issue; does anyone
know if OW executables are notably larger or smaller than Dev-Cpp
executables?
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"John VanSickle" <evi### [at] hotmail com> wrote in message
news:470a9a64$1@news.povray.org...
> Right now I've been using Dev-Cpp for developing my modeler. It's
> getting the job done.
>
> The only real issue with Dev-Cpp is that the fine folks at bloodshed.net
> haven't updated the compiler since 2005, whereas Watcom is still being
> supported.
I speculating you could update to a newer GCC compiler here:
http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=2435 (I found that
page through http://www.mingw.org/download.shtml which may be helpfull too)
and then in the Dev-CPP "Tools->Compiler" menu set it to use the new
compiler.
I might try that sometime, I was surprised to see that Dev-Cpp is so old.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Right now I've been using Dev-Cpp for developing my modeler. It's
> getting the job done.
>
> The only real issue with Dev-Cpp is that the fine folks at bloodshed.net
> haven't updated the compiler since 2005, whereas Watcom is still being
> supported.
>
> The primary issue I have with OpenWatcom is that apparently the floating
> point library that comes with it doesn't include single-precision
> version of the functions, only doubles. That isn't a show-stopper;
> although the objects in my project which use floats use single-precision
> values (a space issue, since there may be many thousands of them in a
> project), the library doesn't get called that much, so the casting and
> re-casting isn't hurting performance.
>
> Watcom also has a feature that appears to be lacking in Dev-Cpp, which
> is the warnings for unused local variables (not vital, but it's nice for
> this former C64 programmer to know where a wasted byte may be lurking in
> my code); so that's a point in its favor.
>
> (As an aside, the IDE in lcc-win32 has a feature that flags unrecognized
> symbols (by underlining them); that helped get typos fixed more quickly.)
>
> The question I haven't answered yet is the code size issue; does anyone
> know if OW executables are notably larger or smaller than Dev-Cpp
> executables?
>
> Regards,
> John
I personally use MinGW (same compiler Dev-C++ uses), a bash shell, and
gVim. Yes, on Windows.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
