When i press F9 it should compile and run right? I just started using it today but the F9 button only compiles it but would not run it. I checked the configuration for the buttons. F9 is assigned to compile and run. Whats the problem??
Printable View
When i press F9 it should compile and run right? I just started using it today but the F9 button only compiles it but would not run it. I checked the configuration for the buttons. F9 is assigned to compile and run. Whats the problem??
The problem is that Dev-C++ has been deprecated for years :P Try Code::Blocks, it's very similar to Dev-C++, but far more powerful and more stable.
I recommend VS2010 Express if you're using Windows. Both the compiler and IDE are feature rich, and there is a lot of support for it online.
I've been using Eclipse CDT for the past year and I found it to be very good. The semantic highlighting and code completion features are very handy. As an added bonus, it's cross-platform.
Another advantage of Eclipse (and I believe Code::Blocks, too) over Visual Studio is that you can plug in any compiler to work with them. So if you've been using Dev-C++ and are used to the g++ compiler which it uses (in terms of the style of the error messages and so on), you can keep using g++ with Eclipse and not have to switch compilers.
I dont mean to be rude but i want solutions not recommendations. Sorry if i sound rude.
I'm pretty sure that another compiler is the "solution"
dev c++ latest release is from 5 years ago, that's is a long period, not to mention c++0x, latest compilers (at least latest releases of gcc and visual c++) support new stuff from the new standard.
If you want a "real" solution, download the source code and fix the problem yourself (but the real solution is a new IDE with a new compiler)
Dev-C++ is a dead project. It has been dead for a few years now. So "solutions" just aren't going to come by so easy for something that is no longer maintained or fixed by the author.Quote:
Originally Posted by hayloiuy
So you just started to use it today, and come heck or high-water, you want this thing to work. Is this the case? Then good luck in that.Quote:
I just started using it today
Seriously, Dev-C++ and CodeBlocks uses the same compiler, gcc. Since you just started using Dev-C++, why not just download CodeBlocks and recompile your program using an IDE that is actually being maintained? Whenever I am looking for apps to buy (or use), I don't just go with the first thing I try out.
Regards,
Paul McKenzie
The major irritation the gcc compiler causes is that it doesn't have error code (like C2180), it just dumps all the errors and you need to keep looking properly. As with VC++ compiler, each and every error has its error code, and it can be looked in MSDN, as well as on Internet. Just search for Cnnnn!
Also, gcc doesn't show up the error count (the version I used, around 3.x version) - which is again frustrating.
Eclipse is in Java, runs sluggishly. I would prefer Net Beans. Haven't used CodeBlocks.
Visual Studio can also be plugged in, with other compilers like Intel's compilers.
In my experience, it's usually easy enough to search for the gcc error messages on Google and get helpful results. You simply have to make sure to omit the portion of the message specific to your project, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajay Vijay
Of course, as with any compiler, you learn what the errors really mean quickly enough anyway.
Considering that error counts are rarely related to the actual number of problems in a program---many errors will go away with just one fix---it never occurred to me to miss that, honestly.Quote:
Also, gcc doesn't show up the error count (the version I used, around 3.x version) - which is again frustrating.
Of course, at the end of the day it's a good idea to build your code with multiple compilers, if only to ensure you aren't accidentally using nonportable compiler extensions (which is easier to do than you might think), and to get the benefit of the fact that different compilers will warn you for different things. gcc doesn't give unused parameter warnings (at least by default, I'm not sure if you can turn that on), and Visual Studio doesn't give you initializer list ordering warnings, for instance.
Not everyone has access to Internet. A simplified documentation would do much better.
And even if you have access to Internet, the error message may change by versions of compiler. Or the gcc's language may change - the error code would be same and you can get detailed discussion on that consistently, despite compiler versions and/or compiler language (the error message).
I mean like 5 is universally defined to be "Access Denied", in all versions of Windows, irrespective of language, it is much better than testing the GetLastErrorMessage with this string. I know you got my point here!
Learning the meaning of messages quickly is not the cup of tea for most of the beginners. Also, as you move with templates, inlining, complicated overloaded or inheritance related error messages - even moderate or experienced programmers get confused over what compiler is telling. My experience with template errors, as emitted by gcc, is like horror! Couldn't get where did the error started. Agreed that versions before VC8 wasn't that friendly with template related errors, they still were better than gcc's error messages as of now!
Error count doesnt matter, even for me, but just mentioned as missing feature in gcc.
For VC, unused parameter warning code is C4100 ! It is level 4 warning.
Yes, there are warnings not shown by different compilers. VC doesnt have few, gcc doesnt have few (now don't ask me to list which warning gcc doesnt give - I dont remember but there were few ;) )
A quick check shows that -Wextra turns on warnings for unused parameters. I guess that is more or less consistent with MSVC's level 4 corresponding warning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindley
Not wanting to turn this thread into a war, but last I checked, VC++ doesn't run on linux, whereas GCC runs on windows. VC++ may have all the features in the world, that's a show stopper. Given we are inside the "C++ (Non Visual C++ Issues)", a lot of people here will put A LOT of importance in standard compliance and portability, both of which VC++ lacks of.
Of course, if you are coding exclusively for windows, knock yourself out. One of the great things about VC++ is its debugger. It is very efficient and easy to use.
About the error codes. IMO, after you've coded for 2 or 3 years (and are serious about it), it doesn't matter anymore, as the only errors you may do are mostly typos. You won't actually be doing many illegal things anymore. At least, nothing so obscure so as to have to open your documentation.
It's not a war, but general discussion - and that is the heart of this forum!
But I see your point, and I quite appreciate it. The error-codes are not indispensable, not a must-have feature, but a nice-to-have feature.
Not all compilers support 100% feature of C++ standard, gcc supports more features than VC++. But for Windows programmers, that are, IMO, quite enough!
Likewise, not all RDBMS are truly-RDBMS - only subset of RDBMS specifications.
Not really: based on my experience, I agree with:Quote:
Originally Posted by monarch_dodra
I have a tendency to merely trace the source of the error based on line numbers when the compiler spews template related error messages at me. I believe there is also a tool that supposedly "deciphers" these error messages, but I have never used it myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajay Vijay
True, but at the same time, you are saying you don't even read the error message, you just look at the line number and take it from there. Which is exactly what I was saying. The contents of the error message or how well documented the message is isn't really that important.Quote:
Originally Posted by laserlight
I notice most of the time I get a 25 line error message, the gist is "Function not found". Sometimes it const-related errors. I just look at the line number, and then I usually see that I passed the arguments wrong.
I was saying that once you've coded for a while, the fact that there is a code associated to the message, or that one's compiler message is clearer than the other's is moot, as long as you can trace it back to the offending line number.
Sometimes the message helps, but I can't remember the last time I really had to stop and look up a compiler error message because I didn't understand what was going on, or how to fix it.
I think those tools merely transformQuote:
Originally Posted by laserlight
intoCode:std::basic_stream(typename T, typename Alloc = std::allocator<T> with T = character, Alloc = std::allocator<char>)
. kinda useful, but once you've seen them a few times, you learn to read through it. I haven't really ever tried one though.Code:string
STLFilt is well worth the few mins of hassle to get set up.
The key skill for template errors, on any compiler, is wading through the useless noise to find the helpful information. Usually it's right at the beginning and/or right at the end of a given error...and the line number is often the most useful part, as has been said. You should see some of the errors you can end up with while trying to use boost::variant.....two pages of output for a 1-character typo, at times. (I'm hoping that C++0x variadic templates will allow the library maintainers to provide a simpler implementation which doesn't spew such massive errors.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajay Vijay
I actually have come across a few that I've had to look up recently. I think one was about "undefined reference to vtable for Class", which basically amounted to something like "you forgot to give the destructor a definition".Quote:
Originally Posted by monarch_dodra
Seriously, how hard would it be to add an expert system to an IDE which could intelligently suggest what might be the cause of a given error?
I think that feature is concepts, and not variadic templates.Quote:
I'm hoping that C++0x variadic templates will allow the library maintainers to provide a simpler implementation which doesn't spew such massive errors
I still argue that intelligent compiler should have error codes.Quote:
Seriously, how hard would it be to add an expert system to an IDE which could intelligently suggest what might be the cause of a given error?
In general yes, but if you'd seen the boost::variant errors I have you'd know what I was talking about. Massive types with like 20 template parameters, most of which are called "unused" or something.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Ajay Vijay
Couldn't hurt, but a true expert system would go far enough beyond that as to make them redundant. It would have processing such as:Quote:
I still argue that intelligent compiler should have error codes.
1) Function is an unresolved external symbol.
2) Is there a function with the same name defined?
3A) Yes -> There might be a parameter/qualifier mismatch between a function declaration on line N and the definition on line M?
3B) No -> Is there a function with a similar name defined?
3Ba) Yes -> There might be a typo in the function declaration on line N or the definition on line M?
etc.
About gcc not giving good error messages or error count: that is Dev-C++ not revealing them, not gcc failing to give them. Code::Blocks gives you more output. Also, You said you're working with GCC 3.2? O.o Use 4.2 if you are on Mac or 4.4 if you are on PC/Linux.
Why do you want an error code? GCC gives you an the error in plain english, as well as the exact line that the error occurs on.