Meaningful subject added.  Next time please fill in the "subject" thingy in
your email client.  Tag also changed from EE to TECH.  This clearly isn't E=
E
(duh).  It could be PIC, but you never mentioned a PIC, so I changed it to
TECH.  Not getting these basic and very simple things right doesn't do much
for how you are preceived here.  If you can't even get such easy things
right, how is there any chance you can successfully write a computer
program?


Charles Rogers wrote:
> Could any one reccomend a C compiler that doesn't resort
> to the Command prompt to run what ever you write.

Huh?  C compilers don't asynchronously run things on your system.  In fact
the ones I've seen don't run your program at all.  They compile (convert)
your source code to binary, and can also usually link it to form a full
executable.

Compilers have a command line interface, of course.  If they didn't, how
would you propose that higher level tools, like MAKE or scripts or whatever=
,
perform a set of builds as one command?  If what you want is a
clickety-click interface to a C compiler (which is a ways from what you
wrote), then you can make that yourself.  It's very easy to set up a
clickable menu entry to run a program or batch file and pass it canned
parameters.

> I'm
> writing simple C programs and editors are easy to find but
> compilers all seem to use the Command Prompt to run the
> results.

It seems you need to learn what each of compiler, linker, and operating
system do in the process between you writing a C program and that program
ultimately being run.  It also seems you need to learn some Windows basics
about how to create menu entries.  Dig around in the START > SETTINGS >
START MENU (or something like that) menu and you should be able to find a
clickety-click interface to create a new menu entry to run the program of
your choice.

If what you really want is something that appears to just "run" a C source
file, that's pretty easy to set up.  Look in the compiler manual and see
what command line options are needed to compile and link a program.  Then
write a batch file to issue that command and run the result.  I would also
delete the EXE file before the compile/link, then check for its existance
after.  That way the script won't try to run the result if there was a buil=
d
error.  If you want all that in clickety-click form, create a menu entry
that runs the script.

Wanting all this in clickety-click form is not a good idea, however.
Getting error messages to be visible could be tricky.  What's so bad about
running the tools from the command line anyway?  By making your own scripts=
,
you can simplify the interface to your particlar instance to whatever level
you want.  You could shorten the whole process to a single-letter command i=
f
you really want to.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.