Compiler redistribution (Microsoft or Borland)

Printable View

11-09-2010
twinbee

Compiler redistribution (Microsoft or Borland)

Would I be able to redistribute the Borland C/C++ compiler (their free 5.5 version) or the Microsoft C++ Visual Express compiler with my own software (which may be potentially commercial and close sourced for now), perhaps even for free?

Also what is the name/filename of the MVSC++ Express compiler ? I hunted all over the place (internet and hard drive), and it seems completely anonymous.

Are there any other fast (runtime fast) compilers which allow redistribution for relatively low cost or free of charge?
11-09-2010
User Name:

Not without paying MS or Borland royalties. You could redistribute GCC in binary and source for absolutely no charge and no risk of litigation.
11-09-2010
twinbee

GCC is GPL which means I would need to provide my own software as open source AFAIK.

Borland have a confusing license for 5.5 which mentions "nothing to be redistributed, apart from certain 'redistrubatables' " which are defined elsewhere, but of course I don't have a clue where (what do you expect from legalize speak).

Visual studio C++ on the other hand has a list of allowed redistributables, but since it doesn't indicate what the actual *compiler* file/s is/are, I have no idea of telling which is which.

A bit of a mess really, but I'll take your word for it that I would need to pay them royalties. This may be an option depending on how the following perform:

Digital Mars C/C++ compiler (this is proprietary too, but I have a better chance of getting through to someone I believe).

TCC (Tiny C compiler): About the only LGPL C (though not C++) compiler around I think - worth a shot, and very fast at compiling, though less so with runtime code.

Thanks for your help.
11-09-2010
brewbuck

Quote:

Originally Posted by twinbee

GCC is GPL which means I would need to provide my own software as open source AFAIK.

Unless you are linking your software directly with gcc, this is not the case. Simply distributing a GPL component as part of a product does not force the entire product to be GPL. See the section on "bundling"
11-09-2010
Elkvis

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewbuck

Unless you are linking your software directly with gcc, this is not the case. Simply distributing a GPL component as part of a product does not force the entire product to be GPL. See the section on "bundling"

the microsoft platform SDK includes the C/C++ compiler, and is available for download without getting visual studio. not sure what the redistribution rules for it are though.
11-09-2010
Lithorien

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elkvis

the microsoft platform SDK includes the C/C++ compiler, and is available for download without getting visual studio. not sure what the redistribution rules for it are though.

I'll actually point you here: Download details: Microsoft Visual C++ 2010 Redistributable Package (x86)

This is the Visual C++ 2010 redist package. It gives users the ability to run applications that require runtime components (libraries) when they don't have VC++2010 installed.

At any rate - avoid GPL'd software like the plague. It's viral, and a bit of a social problem to boot. Just say no to GPL. :)
11-09-2010
User Name:

The MSVC RTL redist is only a DLL for libc and other functions linked in by MSVC.

> At any rate - avoid GPL'd software like the plague. It's viral, and a bit of a social problem to boot. Just say no to GPL.
What's wrong with the GPL? Although IMO BSD is better, AKAICT there's no reason to "avoid" it...
11-09-2010
laserlight

Why exactly do you want to distribute an entire C++ compiler along with your software, or are you just talking about what Lithorien guessed, i.e., you want your users to have "the ability to run applications that require runtime components (libraries) when they don't have (the compiler) installed"?
11-10-2010
CornedBee

"clang" C Language Family Frontend for LLVM

BSD-style license, can be used as a library, can even JIT C code.
11-10-2010
twinbee

Quote:

Unless you are linking your software directly with gcc, this is not the case. Simply distributing a GPL component as part of a product does not force the entire product to be GPL. See the section on "bundling"

Heh, I get so confused regarding GPL - I'll have to read up further. Just to be clear, when you say 'linking', I presume you mean static linking to make a giant executable which has GCC stuff in it. I presume what's okay for me is to call the DLLs externally from my program (supply the DLLs separately).

I've always been a bit confused how that would be advantageous for the GPL'd software (maybe they want end-users to see that the GPL'd software components are being used, but one can always put an acknowledgement of the GPL components in the credits of the program). Thanks for the clarification anyway. I might give GCC a go (though speed, and especially bloatedness (almost 100 meg for the compiler I think) could be an issue...).

Quote:

What's wrong with the GPL?

I'm thinking the same now. If it doesn't enforce anything upon my own software (as long as I call the DLLs), then how is it an issue?

Quote:

Why exactly do you want to distribute an entire C++ compiler along with your software

Letting my users program via something like Python (or even LuaJIT, possibly the fastest interpreted scripting out there according to the programming language shootout) is too slow for my purposes. I want my users' erm, 'scripts' to be lightning fast basically - as fast as my own code. And also it's less fuss implementation-wise I reckon.

You say the word 'entire', but many compilers are very compact. For instance, TCC is a megabyte. Even DMC is only around 10 megabyte, which isn't *too* bad. GCC is approaching 100 meg I think, so yes, maybe *that's* pushing it a bit ;)

Quote:

"clang" C Language Family Frontend for LLVM

Thanks. Yeah I saw that too, and was the last one I was going to check out.