Best free c complifer for classic amiga? i own HiSoft C++ (which is based Maxon stuff i think when i look somefiles) but somehow works very oddly i bet there is nothing wrong my source but sometimes even says i dont declared main. sometimes not works very odd way. i compared my code many times to commodore,ansi c examples. now i download DICE,and GCC.

@Vanhapolle

The best one is GCC (2.95.3), however it is also the slowest one and probably has the highest requirements (HDD and 16 MB RAM is a must, 68030 recommended).

_________________
RastPort

@g_kraszewski

Agreed it's abit of a pig to setup, but once working is the GCC is the best.

Though I do mean to try out the 68k version of VBCC someday.

_________________
BroadBlues On Blues BroadBlues On Amiga Walker Broad

@Vanhapolle

How free has free to be ?

And what has to be best about best ?

*runs*

For example you could get the developer CD which does include StormC_V3, maybe not the very best compiler but a very easy to use one (useable editor included).

Or you could hunt down a 2nd hand copy of SAS-C, the IMO still best compiler for 68k&Amiga-specific coding (not so useable editor included).

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

There is no better, each one has it's advantages.
For writing and testing the code SASC by far, because it has an awesome debugger with a decent GUI. None of the others have that and that is essential to speed up development IMO.

For quality of code, VBCC. Some AOS4 were produced with VBCC.

GCC for portability and C++ stuff...


Don't forget you can for example use SASC for writing and testing the code and then use VBCC for faster and more compact executables on the final code.

Last edited by Jose on 17-Nov-2014 at 03:36 PM.

_________________

José

@Vanhapolle

there is also Amidevcpp:
http://amidevcpp.amiga-world.de/

it only runs on windows but you can crosscompile

im not sure if i would go for amidevcpp in order to compile genuine amiga software. i have used it, but it produces a little orthodox makefiles and is at times quirky to use. for instance when it insists to compile c sources as c++ or so afair, i might be wrong. of course its probably anyway better to use a shell and no ide for portability reasons. amidevcpp offers gcc3.5.x which isnt optimal. bernd rosch has offered also 4.5.0 which was better performance wise but less amiga compatible afair. not sure where to get it these days though.

ive been told by people whom i trust, that vbcc would be a good choice.

Last edited by wawa on 17-Nov-2014 at 04:34 PM.
Last edited by wawa on 17-Nov-2014 at 04:34 PM.

@broadblues

Quote:

Though I do mean to try out the 68k version of VBCC someday.

This is what I use to build 68k binaries under OS4. It's dead easy to set up as a cross (or native) compiler. Unfortunately vbcc isn't entirely compatible with GCC, but for small stuff it's fine, and if you're using it as your main compiler for a new project there should be no problem at all.

_________________
"Miracles we do at once, the impossible takes a little longer" - AJS on Hyperion
Avatar is Tabitha by Eric W Schwartz

i look vbcc someday and developer cds storm c i think is demo version or i am remembering wrong. but now seems my codeworks at least somelevel. I quick test for error handling.

Last edited by Vanhapolle on 17-Nov-2014 at 04:51 PM.

@Vanhapolle

GCC can be considered as a reference but as it was already said, may be complicated to setup.

I recommend vbcc compiler that is easy to install and lighter, compiles faster, ...

Quote:

Kronos wrote: For example you could get the developer CD which does include StormC_V3, maybe not the very best compiler but a very easy to use one (useable editor included).

Please stay away from StormC v3 as it's very buggy and dead end. StormC v4 using GCC is ok for people into that kind of GUI environment and who have a high enough spec Amiga for it.

Quote:

Jose wrote: For writing and testing the code SASC by far, because it has an awesome debugger with a decent GUI. None of the others have that and that is essential to speed up development IMO.

CodeProbe is good but I like BDebug from the Barfly package on Aminet better. The new unreleased version of vbcc outputs symbol and debug information (with -g) that is compatible with both CodeProbe and BDebug. The new version of vbcc should be available in the next few weeks (before Christmas?) with a huge amount of bug fixes and improvements.

Quote:

I recommend vbcc compiler that is easy to install and lighter, compiles faster, ...

Vbcc is the easiest C compiler I know of to install on an Amiga. It's not exactly light (on memory) and fast to compile though on a classic Amiga if you get into bigger projects and higher optimization levels (-O1 gives more optimized code than GCC with -O1). It does have good Amiga support, it's actively developed and it's a cross compiler which is convenient. There is no C++ and external development tools are needed (GCC strong points).

very likely i dont need C++ actually i like C more. btw Storm C 4 seems unavailable. oops i found it but is not free. ps. now HiSoft C++ works fine i think. There is still maybe something odd with it or/and me. hare tell better...

ps. i know HiSoft C++ is not free but i buyed it years ago becouse Storm C is pricey in then.

@matthey

Do you know how the new unreleased vbcc compares to new gcc wrt speed of compiled code? The benchmarks on the vbcc site are, shall we say, somewhat out of date.

_________________
"Miracles we do at once, the impossible takes a little longer" - AJS on Hyperion
Avatar is Tabitha by Eric W Schwartz

@matthey

I love VBCC, the only reason I'm not using except for final code is the lack of supported debugger output. That new version you talk about is a game changer for me :)

_________________

José

Quote:

Chris_Y wrote: Do you know how the new unreleased vbcc compares to new gcc wrt speed of compiled code? The benchmarks on the vbcc site are, shall we say, somewhat out of date.

You probably speak of PPC code generation quality? I can't really say as there is no changelog that I am aware of. My guess is that not much has changed except for bug fixes (which may allow some optimizations that were not possible before) and better support (c99 and Amiga). You would have to e-mail Frank Wille to find out and he could give you the newest sources (I can compile it on my 68060 Amiga so it's not difficult). The vbcc PPC code generation was already very good and better than the 68k (which has significant improvements since the last released version). Of course, the newest versions of GCC have started generating better quality code again and do a good job of PPC support so I don't know which will give the best PPC code quality. A compiler from a small group like vbcc can give better Amiga support but it's always going to be difficult competing with the big guys in code quality for popular CPU targets.

Quote:

Jose wrote: I love VBCC, the only reason I'm not using except for final code is the lack of supported debugger output. That new version you talk about is a game changer for me :)

The SAS/C debug support (Amiga 68k standard) is actually in the old version of the compiler and linker. The vbcc backend has a switch which turns off DWARF debug and selects SAS/C debug and then -g is needed on the command line when compiling. DWARF debug doesn't make any sense in the Amiga Hunk format as nothing uses it so changing the way the switch works and a config change make it so only -g when compiling is necessary with a 68k AmigaOS target. It was a really easy change to make. I have tested with both CPR and BDebug which both show the line of the executing C source file that is being executed :).

Last edited by matthey on 18-Nov-2014 at 04:57 PM.

@matthey

Quote:

You probably speak of PPC code generation quality?

Yes, PPC. It was just a curiousity.

_________________
"Miracles we do at once, the impossible takes a little longer" - AJS on Hyperion
Avatar is Tabitha by Eric W Schwartz

@Vanhapolle

If you are going to do just 68k/amiga coding than HiSoft C/C++/Storm C 3/4 with the ide. its simple to use...


my compiler is GCC(king).
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Portability.html

_________________
http://aros-exec.org/

http://serk118.blogspot.com/

@matthey

Quote:

The new version of vbcc should be available in the next few weeks (before Christmas?) with a huge amount of bug fixes and improvements.

The only main 'gripe' I had with VBCC was its lack of support for the '__FUNC__' (iirc) preprocessor keyword. This may be a GCC specific one, but nonetheless I found it extremely handy. Often compiled my projects with both GCC and VBCC to squeeze the last sore points out of a source.

OldFart

_________________
More then three levels of indigestion and you're scroomed!

Quote:

serk118 wrote: If you are going to do just 68k/amiga coding than HiSoft C/C++/Storm C 3/4 with the ide. its simple to use...

There is also the Cubic IDE but it's not free either.

http://www.softwareandcircuits.com/division/amiga/products/cubic/

AmiDevCpp is the best "free" IDE that I'm aware of but it doesn't work on a classic Amiga.

Quote:

OldFart wrote: The only main 'gripe' I had with VBCC was its lack of support for the '__FUNC__' (iirc) preprocessor keyword. This may be a GCC specific one, but nonetheless I found it extremely handy. Often compiled my projects with both GCC and VBCC to squeeze the last sore points out of a source.

Actually, __func__ appears to have been added to C99. Unfortunately, It doesn't look like it's supported in vbcc yet although vbcc is getting better at C99 support. There is a good chance that support for __func__ will be added at some point.

@Jose

Quote:

For writing and testing the code SASC by far, because it has an awesome debugger with a decent GUI. None of the others have that and that is essential to speed up development IMO.

I agree. When I played around with AmigaE I discovered EDBG, the GUI debugger, and I never looked back. Given ASM also included a GUI debugger, which was more low level, it always seemed backwards to program in C or any other high level language wtthout a source level debugger,

Some people prefer the old PrintF() method but it is time consuming adding it to suspect parts of code as well as tracking variable contents.