Comments on: C Compilers http://blog.reverberate.org/2009/03/03/c-compilers/ parsing, performance, minimalism with C99 Thu, 26 Jan 2012 04:15:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Phil http://blog.reverberate.org/2009/03/03/c-compilers/comment-page-1/#comment-1304 Phil Fri, 01 May 2009 03:52:02 +0000 http://blog.reverberate.org/?p=146#comment-1304 Hey! It's been months! What happened? Hey! It’s been months! What happened?

]]> By: Anonymous http://blog.reverberate.org/2009/03/03/c-compilers/comment-page-1/#comment-1302 Anonymous Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:17:07 +0000 http://blog.reverberate.org/?p=146#comment-1302 not to just chime in about another compiler a month later, but whatever. There's also Watcom, which used to be a decent compiler especially due to the dos/4gw extender. I think it's been opensourced as OpenWatcom for a while, but it's development might be dead. not to just chime in about another compiler a month later, but whatever.

There’s also Watcom, which used to be a decent compiler especially due to the dos/4gw extender. I think it’s been opensourced as OpenWatcom for a while, but it’s development might be dead.

]]> By: Dave http://blog.reverberate.org/2009/03/03/c-compilers/comment-page-1/#comment-1280 Dave Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:18:16 +0000 http://blog.reverberate.org/?p=146#comment-1280 Don't forget the <a href="http://www-01.ibm.com/software/awdtools/xlcpp/" rel="nofollow">IBM XL C compiler</a> too It's based on a GCC frontend, IIRC, so porting should be easy. But it's worth adding to your list if you are truly looking for a complete set. I've so far managed to avoid using the PGI compilers personally, but I've heard that they are (were?) sufficiently quirky to provide a decent test of your portability. If you were really paranoid you could aim for C89-compliance with a few very common C99 features (this is what we do in MPICH2). This mostly shouldn't matter though unless you want to run on machines that are just old or very exotic at this point. Older Sun compilers in particular can be a nightmare. Also, even if you do manage to make your software truly C89 or C99 compliant, there's still a good chance that you will have to work around some compiler quirks somewhere using autoconf or something similar in your build system (unless your project is sufficiently simple and high-level). Just something to keep in mind. -Dave Don't forget the IBM XL C compiler too

It's based on a GCC frontend, IIRC, so porting should be easy. But it's worth adding to your list if you are truly looking for a complete set.

I've so far managed to avoid using the PGI compilers personally, but I've heard that they are (were?) sufficiently quirky to provide a decent test of your portability.

If you were really paranoid you could aim for C89-compliance with a few very common C99 features (this is what we do in MPICH2). This mostly shouldn't matter though unless you want to run on machines that are just old or very exotic at this point. Older Sun compilers in particular can be a nightmare.

Also, even if you do manage to make your software truly C89 or C99 compliant, there's still a good chance that you will have to work around some compiler quirks somewhere using autoconf or something similar in your build system (unless your project is sufficiently simple and high-level). Just something to keep in mind.

-Dave

]]>