Sign in to follow this  
UltimateWalrus

MSVC 6.0 debugger hangs

Recommended Posts

UltimateWalrus    229
Has anyone ever seen this before?? I needed to reinstall MSVC 6.0. So I did. At the end, it "strongly" suggested that I run a Windows NT symbols setup afterwards. So I did (stupidly, since my computer is Win2K). It had worked on this computer before; but now every time I try to go into debug mode by hitting F5, it says "Loading symbols..." and hangs. It can compile OK but the debug mode hangs every time. I have tried the following: -Reinstall MSVC. -Uninstall then reinstall MSVC, but don't run the symbols setup. -Rename the windows directory that contains *.dbg files. -Delete all *.dbg files from the windows directory; then uninstall and reinstall MSVC. I'm really not sure where to go from here. Is there some kind of registry key I need to delete or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Verg    450
MSVC 6.0 is toothy old man that needs put out of his misery.

VS2005 Express is available free (I believe) and does a whole lot better job at just about EVERYTHING (with the exception of the Intellisense-thread-blocking garbage).

I would suggest upgrading, since you're already in the install/reinstall step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evil Steve    2017
If you're doing C++ development, you need a C++ compiler. MSVC 6 is not a C++ compiler, it came out before the first C++ standard. MSVC 6 is something like 14 years old...

As KulSeran said, why not downlaod the free Visual Studio 2005 Express? It can do everything that MSVC 6 can do with the exception of MFC or resources. You can get external editors for resources, or even use MSVC 6 for that if you want. (Make sure you read This).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UltimateWalrus    229
Oh! For some reason I was under the impression that the newest Visual Studio was only for XP; but in the "requirements" section it says it's compatible with Win2K. Maybe I'll try installing that and see how it goes. Thanks for the advice!

If anyone has any ideas on how to fix MSVC6, I'm still open to suggestions. I'd still like to keep a working copy on my computer... from my experience, antiquated software often offers the users much more power than newer versions that take features away from them "for their own good." :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spoonbender    1258
Quote:
Original post by fpsgamer
Quote:
Original post by Evil Steve
MSVC 6 is not a C++ compiler.


MSVC 6 is not an ansi C++ compiler.

Fixed. [grin]


But since 98 C++ has been an ISO standard. I don't know if an ANSI standard still technically speaking exists.
But today, in 2007, C++ == ISO C++. And VC++6.0 is *not* compliant with that standard so today, in 2007, it is not a C++ compiler.

Quote:
from my experience, antiquated software often offers the users much more power than newer versions that take features away from them "for their own good." :)

Your experience doesn't apply to Visual C++.
The only extra thing 6.0 offers is the ability to generate illegal or buggy code.
Personally I can live without that feature "for my own good".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UltimateWalrus    229
My dad has 30 years of programming experience, and currently works on embedded firmware for storage devices. At his workplace, they prefer to use MSVC 6.0 because it compiles more efficiently than the newer versions. I'm sure there are perfectly valid reasons to use the newer versions as well. I'm just saying :)

Now I remember why I thought Visual C++ 2005 wouldn't work on Win2K... the Platform SDK doesn't install on it. Well, I guess I'll look for an outdated SDK to install... :\

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sneftel    1788
Quote:
Original post by UltimateWalrus
My dad has 30 years of programming experience, and currently works on embedded firmware for storage devices. At his workplace, they prefer to use MSVC 6.0 because it compiles more efficiently than the newer versions.

Actually, the VC6 compiler produces extremely inefficient code in a lot of circumstances (not to mention, incorrect code in some circumstances). It's likely that his workplace uses it because certain embedded device SDKs were written to work with VC6 and never updated after that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_goat    804
Quote:
Original post by UltimateWalrus
Now I remember why I thought Visual C++ 2005 wouldn't work on Win2K... the Platform SDK doesn't install on it. Well, I guess I'll look for an outdated SDK to install... :\


You can just download the Platform SDK from Microsoft's own website?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UltimateWalrus    229
Quote:
Original post by Sneftel
Actually, the VC6 compiler produces extremely inefficient code in a lot of circumstances (not to mention, incorrect code in some circumstances). It's likely that his workplace uses it because certain embedded device SDKs were written to work with VC6 and never updated after that.


I'll have to ask him, but it's actually probably because they use mostly C code (in other words, no classes). This is because of the need for high efficiency in the firmware --- they simply can't afford the extra overhead that is needed for C++ classes. It could be that MSVC6 does C more efficiently while later versions do C++ more efficiently.

Quote:
Original post by _goat
You can just download the Platform SDK from Microsoft's own website?


Yes I know, that's not the problem. The problem is that the latest Platform SDK is no longer compatible with Windows 2000... so I won't be able to install it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike2343    1202
Quote:
Original post by UltimateWalrus
Quote:
Original post by Sneftel
Actually, the VC6 compiler produces extremely inefficient code in a lot of circumstances (not to mention, incorrect code in some circumstances). It's likely that his workplace uses it because certain embedded device SDKs were written to work with VC6 and never updated after that.


I'll have to ask him, but it's actually probably because they use mostly C code (in other words, no classes). This is because of the need for high efficiency in the firmware --- they simply can't afford the extra overhead that is needed for C++ classes. It could be that MSVC6 does C more efficiently while later versions do C++ more efficiently.


I doubt from VC6 to VC2005 they made the C compiler slower. If anything they just carried it along. I could be wrong but simple tests would prove this either way. It was quite the happy day when I threw out my copy of VC6, sadly, not long ago.

But it is very likely that they use mostly C (maybe all). A friend of mine does a lot of embedded stuff and he says they pretty much use assembly and C. I guess it mostly depends on the device you're using too.

Anyways, why not pick up a copy of XP, it's pretty cheap now and basically has the same hardware requirements. Make your life easier, you get a MUCH better IDE and compiler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this