|
Of course the thing that controls the other thing will dump output from the other thing when you run it. I refer you again to the documentation I linked to, which clearly states that the cl.exe is a utility that controls MSVC.
Even if it's currently embedded in cl.exe the concept is distinct, meaning microsoft may expose the *MSVC* compiler as a service at some point (if they haven't already, i haven't kept up with their latest nonsense)
cl.exe is a tool that controls the Microsoft C++ (MSVC) C and C++ compilers and linker. cl.exe can be run only on operating systems that support Microsoft Visual Studio for Windows.
Read it carefully, and I think you'll understand why I call the compiler Microsoft Visual C++ and not "cl.exe"
Real programmers use butterflies
modified 17-Mar-21 10:17am.
|
|
|
|
|
This can be investigated with something like Project Explorer, by compiling some crazy "template template template parameters" stuff, which may give insane compilation time. Just reading the documentation, I can only guess that cl.exe is compiler, which runs the linker if necessary:
CL automatically invokes the linker after compiling unless the /c option is used.
From our point of view, this is not important, unless we want to develop some new makefile system. Not in my schedule for this week, anyway...
|
|
|
|
|
Fair enough, but based on the documentation produced by microsoft, and all of its related materials they do indeed call their compiler MSVC.
Therefore, I don't think it's exactly accurate to correct someone for referring to it as Microsoft Visual C++.
MSVC isn't an IDE. Visual Studio is an IDE, so there isn't really cross-confusion here save for the word "Visual" which is a misnomer when it comes to MSVC, but has *always been the same misnomer* ever since they introduced it, regardless of IDE. It's just what they call it.
Now, we may have different ideas about what it's "really" called. I tend to lean toward what the people that created it call it in their actual documentation and other materials.
You may call it what the command line executable is named.
I honestly don't care. I just don't think what I called it bears correcting, since it's accurate. It ultimately comes down to which name you think is more important (the cli name, or MS's given name), and I think reasonable people can disagree about that while both being correct in what they call it.
Now, if you take issue with that, so be it. I'm willing to die on that hill. 
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: cl.exe is a command line control tool. It is not the compiler.
gcc is no different - and never has been. When you run gcc with the --verbose flag, it shows that compiling a C file to an executable runs the following:
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/8/cc1 -quiet -v -imultiarch x86_64-linux-gnu a.c -quiet -dumpbase a.c -mtune=generic -march=x86-64 -auxbase a -version -fstack-protector-strong -Wformat -Wformat-security -o /tmp/ccJEEoFg.s
This compiles the C to x86_64 assembly.
as -v --64 -o /tmp/ccAlIhSN.o /tmp/ccJEEoFg.s
Produces object code from assembly.
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/8/collect2 -plugin /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/8/liblto_plugin.so -plugin-opt=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/8/lto-wrapper -plugin-opt=-fresolution=/tmp/ccaY47gl.res -plugin-opt=-pass-through=-lgcc -plugin-opt=-pass-through=-lgcc_s -plugin-opt=-pass-through=-lc -plugin-opt=-pass-through=-lgcc -plugin-opt=-pass-through=-lgcc_s --build-id --eh-frame-hdr -m elf_x86_64 --hash-style=gnu --as-needed -dynamic-linker /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2 -pie -z now -z relro -o a /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/8/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/Scrt1.o /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/8/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/crti.o /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/8/crtbeginS.o -L/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/8 -L/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/8/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu -L/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/8/../../../../lib -L/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu -L/lib/../lib -L/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu -L/usr/lib/../lib -L/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/8/../../.. /tmp/ccAlIhSN.o -lgcc --push-state --as-needed -lgcc_s --pop-state -lc -lgcc --push-state --as-needed -lgcc_s --pop-state /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/8/crtendS.o /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/8/../../../x86_64-linux-gnu/crtn.o
collect2 is what does the linking.
cl.exe is much the same (although I think the compilation functionality is in DLLs, not separate EXEs - Windows doesn't have fast process creation with fork/exec, after all).
Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p
|
|
|
|
|
sure, but the people who made the compiler call it GCC
The people that made MSVC call it MSVC
regardless of what the command lines are or how they are structured. The only reason this tangent happened is because someone argued that because cl.exe is called cl.exe that has to do with what the compiler is named. I'd argue it doesn't.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: I'd argue it doesn't.
I agree with you - I always call it MSVC, CMake refers to it as MSVC, seems legit to me.
Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p
|
|
|
|
|
What then is the difference between cl and gcc?
|
|
|
|
|
C++ compiler support - cppreference.com[^]
While the MSVC compiler has improved significantly in recent years it still lags:
Note all the asterisks next to the C++20 library and language features.
The bottom line is those are partial or otherwise "supported with qualifications" which at the end of the day means your standard C++20 code might not compile for MSVC without conditional compiles.
Like I said, it has gotten better, but so did internet explorer before it was replaced.
I prefer to be able to use -std=C++20 and be confident that my standard code will compile, or if it won't, then it's *my fault* - metaprogramming is difficult enough when you know what you're using is fully supported. If it's not, tracking down the error can be a nightmare - I speak from unfortunate experience.
Additionally, the fact that MSVC consistently lags behind in standards support by years (i'm not saying lags behind other compilers, I'm saying lags behind the standard itself) means if I want my code to compile across compilers I have to dumb it down for the lowest common denominator.
And between the major compilers, that lowest common denominator comes up as MSVC. I guess some compiler had to fill that role, but they were going to be my target whoever they were, because they're going to be the reason that I can't have nice things.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Most of those asterisks seem to just show a different kind of version number.
20 years ago, MSVC lagged seriously behind the standard (I'm talkin' to you MSVC 6). Today, conformance is excellent, though for a given feature it may take longer to get into MSVC than the open-source compiler in which the feature was prototyped (duh). I'm comparing compilers for a book on optimization, and so far I haven't encountered a situation in which the three compilers didn't all support a feature, though I accept that they exist.
There are in fact differences in the way the compilers interpret the standard, but this has always been more a bug in the standard than in any of the compilers, or a situation in which one compiler accepts a more generous (nonconforming) syntax than another.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm guilty of glossing over most of that link. My fault. Serves me right for digging it up while in the middle of other things..
I admit a lot of my distaste for MSVC is historical. Pre 2017 it wasn't great, but since then I haven't used it as much as I used to because I do cross compiling mostly these days for MCUs and such.
That it didn't support SFINAE was just unacceptable, IMO.
At the end of the day, I don't trust their compiler products, and frankly, they earned that. It will take some time - a consistent showing of compliance over several standards versions for me to want to rely on them again.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Text like a command line is also "visual"
|
|
|
|
|
I never claimed otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
It's possible to do portable executables (assuming I've picked the context right) with GCC , but clunky (haven't tried to do it with clang). You have to use windres to build a .res file, then you can link that as a source file like any other .c or .cpp file. Looking at an old makefile I think the "-mconsole" and "-mwindows" flags on the GCC command are important, but it's been long enough since I touched this that I can't really remember exactly how it works.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the heads up
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another clang compiler for Windows is incorporated into RAD Studio by Embarcadero Technologies (bcc32c and bcc64). There is a Community version of the IDE which is free for one year.
|
|
|
|
|
clang and gcc can compile PE files just fine. The only thing is that debug information is in DWARF format, not PDB, but that just means you use GDB rather than a Microsoft debugger.
The company I work for has used GCC to produce Windows executables from Ada, C and Fortran for decades (20 years counts as 'decades', right?). The gcc linker can be slow in some circumstances, but aside from that, it works just fine.
What frustrates you with msvc, BTW? It's improved immensely since the dark days of the late 90s/early 2000s, when it felt like they'd never keep up with the C++ Standard...
Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p
|
|
|
|
|
Stuart Dootson wrote: What frustrates you with msvc, BTW?
Well, trying to use it to do SFINAE it failed, and worse, because it didn't support it, it also didn't support std::enable-if.
Now I don't know if they do now. *googles* - looks like they do finally, but frankly, I don't want to have to guess about which parts of the elephanting standard they feel are important while I'm coding. Or wonder if the code I'm writing is problematic or if it's the compiler being well... MSVC. It's a time sink.
And I hate their language extensions. everything is a #$&# pragma
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
C++17 support seems pretty complete in MSVC2017 and 2019 - I generally use this set of tables on CppReference to work out what is/isn't supported by any particular compiler.
I'm using gcc-8 & msvc2017 for my current project, and it's gcc that frustrates me slightly, as it can't support this library...
Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah but look at their C++20 support compared to GCC.
Someone should remind MS it's 2021.
I don't want to have to find out they don't support something the hard way when I'm in the middle of coding.
I'm not using C++20 at the moment, but I plan on switching over soon. If MS has been consistent about anything, it's being years behind the standards.
So I stand by the title of the post
Also if a codebase won't work with GCC I'd argue the problem is almost certainly with the codebase, not gcc.
Because
1. GCC is a modern, popular compiler that is very standards compliant compared to other offerings. If your source can't work with it you're shooting yourself in the foot
2. What about your code isn't actually C++, but really a variant of C++ involving vendor specific extensions? It's not always the issue, but I find it usually is.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
And you really want to fight the new compiler bugs? It is only the second bugfix for VS 2017 that does not contain a C++ compiler fix - I guess they gave up, not finished.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't typically use MSVC. In fact, I don't even test my code to see if it compiles on MSVC anymore - just clang and gcc. If MSVC can't compile it, MSVC is broken, as far as I'm concerned. That's how I treat it.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you misunderstand me. All compilers have bugs. The question is whether standards compliant code will compile with them or not.
Sure, gcc has some bugs, and some of those bugs might impact the above, but they have a lot of catching up to do if they want to ride the Microsoft fail train. This was especially true on previous versions of MSVC, but even today they're still lagging behind clang and GCC in terms of C++ standards support.
At the end of the day, that's what I care about.
Like, as an analogy (but i don't do webdev) I don't care that Chrome may have a rendering bug. I care that it supports HTML5, so that my HTML5 code will theoretically render capably under that system. If there's a specific bug I can deal with that, but that's knowing that Google knows it's a bug and is treating it like a bug.
Consider the different approach MS took with IE. It mirrors their treatment of C++ in terms of standards.
Microsoft's lack of standards compliance isn't treated as a bug. At least historically (which I can speak to with confidence, as opposed to their specific culture and attitude *today* WRT to C++) has been that it's by design, and if you code in the Microsoft ecosystem, you just have to suck it up. Maybe they'll get around to it on the next major version, maybe not.
That's a rather marked difference in terms of what I can expect and what I can rely on when I go to design my code.
In the first case, worst case I have a conditional for Chrome, to work around the bug, and make a note of it in the source.
In the second case, I basically have to fork, because not only is it not going to be fixed, but it's probably not the only thing they *decided* to do differently.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
