Weird Error
http://shrani.si/f/2w/XA/px8A1Nx/untitled.png
Why it shows me this error for a every code ?
I am using Microsoft Visual Studio 2008
Why it shows me this error for a every code ?
I am using Microsoft Visual Studio 2008
Last edited on
I don't know what's going wrong, what about trying to #include the library it suggests?
Maybe you should change your compiler. Dev-C++ 5.2 is a very good one.
Maybe you should change your compiler. Dev-C++ 5.2 is a very good one.
Last edited on
You're using the precompiled headers in MSVC++. You can turn off these features in the project settings or you can turn them off globally so it affects all programs later on.
Essentially, precompiled headers load much faster after the first compilation. The advantage to this is to allow the speed up, as mentioned before, by only compiling the header files once. The down side to this is that when you change your headers, which shouldn't be very often, you can sometimes get errors. I don't use MSVC++, but I believe there is an option to rebuild the project. This should solve your issue since it forces all of your header files to be recompiled again.
Essentially, precompiled headers load much faster after the first compilation. The advantage to this is to allow the speed up, as mentioned before, by only compiling the header files once. The down side to this is that when you change your headers, which shouldn't be very often, you can sometimes get errors. I don't use MSVC++, but I believe there is an option to rebuild the project. This should solve your issue since it forces all of your header files to be recompiled again.
I'd like to refute samrux's post. Do not use DEV-C++
http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/articles/36896/
http://clicktobegin.net/programming/why-you-shouldnt-use-dev-c/
http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/articles/36896/
http://clicktobegin.net/programming/why-you-shouldnt-use-dev-c/
Last edited on
> Do not use DEV-C++
Haven't used Dev C++ myself, but could someone tell me what's so fundamentally wrong with the
MinGW GCC 4.6.2 / gdb / gprof toolchain?
http://sourceforge.net/projects/orwelldevcpp/
> The included MinGW is obsolete.
> The many known bugs may never be fixed.
Appears to be based on personal prejudice rather than facts.
> The IDE lacks some of the features of more modern IDEs
Don't know about this; but from the link, the Dev C++ IDE seems to have most of the basic IDE features in place. The choice of an IDE is a very personal one. Can't we let people decide on their own what IDE they fancy for themselves?
EDIT: Ok, I now see from the date that the article on Dev C++ on this site is obsolete. Update it (or remove it) perhaps?
Haven't used Dev C++ myself, but could someone tell me what's so fundamentally wrong with the
MinGW GCC 4.6.2 / gdb / gprof toolchain?
http://sourceforge.net/projects/orwelldevcpp/
> The included MinGW is obsolete.
> The many known bugs may never be fixed.
Appears to be based on personal prejudice rather than facts.
> The IDE lacks some of the features of more modern IDEs
Don't know about this; but from the link, the Dev C++ IDE seems to have most of the basic IDE features in place. The choice of an IDE is a very personal one. Can't we let people decide on their own what IDE they fancy for themselves?
EDIT: Ok, I now see from the date that the article on Dev C++ on this site is obsolete. Update it (or remove it) perhaps?
Last edited on
The article on this site refers to the BloodShed Dev-C++ IDE. It is severely outdated and no other Dev-C++ compilers have officially been marked as its predecessor. If you would have read the article in its entirety you would have known what was being referred to.
Orwell's Dev-C++ isn't bad by any means, but I still believe it hails in comparison to Code::Blocks' IDE. I started coding with Dev-C++ and it will always have a place in my heart, but hopefully the coders over at Code::Blocks can wrap everything together into a nice neat bundle again soon. They're long overdue for a public release.
Orwell's Dev-C++ isn't bad by any means, but I still believe it hails in comparison to Code::Blocks' IDE. I started coding with Dev-C++ and it will always have a place in my heart, but hopefully the coders over at Code::Blocks can wrap everything together into a nice neat bundle again soon. They're long overdue for a public release.
Last edited on
@JLBorges: I'm the author of one of the referenced articles on Dev-C++ @ ClickToBegin.net, and I do actually have an updated article (and have made some alterations to the original) about updated versions of Dev-C++:
http://clicktobegin.net/programming/updated-versions-of-dev-c/
Personally, I prefer to use Visual Studio, but objectively examining potential problems it's pretty clear there aren't any real issues with using either Orwell or wxDev-C++, which have both been updated.
Unfortunately, it seems a lot of beginners are still coming across the original BloodShed Dev-C++, which is the software mine and the forum-based article are trying to discourage; it was horribly broken when I originally posted about it in 2008, and has only fallen further behind over time.
I've tried to be reasonably clear in my own post that I'm singling out that software and not the newer updated versions, but I think it's very important that beginners continue to be discouraged from using the original software -- if some of them mistakenly avoid the updated versions as well, I think that's a result we can live with.
http://clicktobegin.net/programming/updated-versions-of-dev-c/
Personally, I prefer to use Visual Studio, but objectively examining potential problems it's pretty clear there aren't any real issues with using either Orwell or wxDev-C++, which have both been updated.
Unfortunately, it seems a lot of beginners are still coming across the original BloodShed Dev-C++, which is the software mine and the forum-based article are trying to discourage; it was horribly broken when I originally posted about it in 2008, and has only fallen further behind over time.
I've tried to be reasonably clear in my own post that I'm singling out that software and not the newer updated versions, but I think it's very important that beginners continue to be discouraged from using the original software -- if some of them mistakenly avoid the updated versions as well, I think that's a result we can live with.
> @JLBorges: I'm the author of one of the referenced articles on Dev-C++ @ ClickToBegin.net,
> and I do actually have an updated article (and have made some alterations to the original) about updated versions of Dev-C++:
> http://clicktobegin.net/programming/updated-versions-of-dev-c/
Fair enough. I protested against the 'Do not use Dev-C++' brigade.
I've no beef with 'Do not use Bloodshed Dev-C++'. Just as I have no beef with 'Do not use Visual C++ 98' or 'Do not use GCC 3.2'.
IMHO, the compiler and the standard library implementation are the only important issues. If it were left to me, I would advise beginners not to use an IDE at all for their first few programs.
> and I do actually have an updated article (and have made some alterations to the original) about updated versions of Dev-C++:
> http://clicktobegin.net/programming/updated-versions-of-dev-c/
Fair enough. I protested against the 'Do not use Dev-C++' brigade.
I've no beef with 'Do not use Bloodshed Dev-C++'. Just as I have no beef with 'Do not use Visual C++ 98' or 'Do not use GCC 3.2'.
IMHO, the compiler and the standard library implementation are the only important issues. If it were left to me, I would advise beginners not to use an IDE at all for their first few programs.
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.