I currently develop in C++ on Windows, using Visual Studio 2010. After the official announcement of C++11, I have begun to use some of its features that are already available in MSVC. But, as expected, the great majority of the new changes are not supported.
I thought maybe the upcoming version of Visual Studio would add these new features. However, after reading this it looks like very little is going to change.
And so, I'm curious about the feasibility of using GCC on Windows rather than MSVC, as it appears to support the great majority of C++11 already. As far as I can tell, this would mean using MinGW (I haven't seen any other native Windows versions of GCC). But I have questions about whether this would be worth trying:
Can it be used as a drop-in replacement for cl.exe, or would it involve a lot of hacks and compatibility issues to get Visual Studio to use a different compiler?
The main selling point for Visual Studio, in my opinion, is it's debugger. Is that still usable if you use a different compiler?
Since GCC comes from the *nix world, and isn't native to Windows, are there code quality issues with creating native Windows applications, versus using the native MSVC compiler? (If it matters: most of my projects are games.)
In other words, will the quality of my compiled exe's suffer from using a non-Windows-native compiler?
MSVC has the huge advantage of coming with an IDE that has no equals under Windows, including debugger support.
The probably best alternative for MinGW would be Code::Blocks, but there are worlds in between, especially regarding code completion and the debugger.
Also, MSVC lets you use some proprietary Microsoft stuff (MFC, ATL, and possibly others) that MinGW has no support for, and makes using GDI+ and DirectX easier and more straightforward (though it is possible to do both with MinGW).
Cygwin, as mentioned in another post, will have extra dependencies and possible license issues (the dependency is GPL, so your programs must be, too). MinGW does not have any such dependency or issue.
MinGW also compiles significantly slower than MSVC (though precompiled headers help a little).
Despite all that, GCC/MinGW is an entirely reliable quality compiler, which in my opinion outperforms any to date available version of MSVC in terms of quality of generated code.
This is somewhat less pronounced with the most recent versions of MSVC, but still visible. Especially for anything related to SSE, intrinsics, and inline assembly, GCC has been totally anihilating MSVC ever since (though they're slowly catching up).
Standards compliance is a lot better in GCC too, which can be a double-edged sword (because it can mean that some of your code won't compile on the more conforming compiler!), as is C++11 support.
MinGW optionally also supports DW2 exceptions, which are totally incompatible with the "normal" flavour and take more space in the executable, but on the positive side are "practically zero cost" in runtime.
I want to add some information because the field may have changed since the question was asked.
The main problem for switching away from MSVC was the lack of a good IDE that flawlessly integrates with MinGW . Visual Studio is a very powerful tool and was the only player on Windows for quite some time. However, Jetbrains released a preview version of their new C++ IDE CLion some days ago.
The main benefit comes when working on cross platform applications. In this case, a GCC based tool chain can make life much easier. Moreover, CLion narrowly integrates with CMake, which is also a big plus compared to Visual Studio. Therefore, in my opinion, it is worth to consider switching to MinGW now.
GCC's C++11 support is quite phenomenal (and quite up to par with standards conformance, now that <regex> has been implemented).
If you replace your compiler, you'll need to make sure every dependency can be built with that new compiler. They're not made to be substitutable plugins (although Clang is working on becoming that way).
GCC is a fine compiler, and can produce code that has pretty much the same performance, if not better, than MSVC. It is missing some low-level Windows-specific features though.
Apart from this, to answer your questions:
To get VS to use GCC as a compiler, you'd pretty much need to turn to makefiles or custom build steps all the way. You'd be much better off compiling from the commandline and using CMake or something similar.
You cannot use the VS debugger for GCC code. GCC outputs GDB compatible debug information, and the VS debug format is proprietary, so nothing will change in that area anytime soon.
Code quality is just as good as you'd want it. See above.
No, the quality of your code will actually increase, as GCC will point out several assumed standard extensions MSVC would hide from you. All self-respecting open source projects can be compiled with GCC.
I my humble opinion, it's depends how someone started to code in the first place. I've been using g++ and gcc for more than 20 years now but the reason why i keep using gcc is mainly for licensing reasons. Although i like it too when i don't have a bunch of runtime dependencies or dll's to bundle with my stuff since i came from the DOS era, i still like my stuff small and fast. gcc for windows comes with standard win32 libraries and common control but i had to develop my own win32 controls for stuff that might require mcf shit to work properly or just to look nicer.
Although gcc might have strong support over internet, when it comes to win32 stuff, many rely on mcf and vc proprietary stuff so again, one may have to work his own issues around and be creative when difficulty arises.
I think it's all about needs and circumstances. If you are just a hobbyist coders and have the time for researches, creating you own libs and stuff but you want a solid compiler that's around since the late 80's and free, gcc sound perfect for the job.
But in the industry visual studio is a must if you want to be competitive and stay in the race. Many hardware manufacturers would prefer bundling visual studio compatible libraries for they hardware over some opensource gnu stuff.
That's my two cents.
To be honest, C++ should be handled with MS Visual Studio. If you want to make cross-platform or Unix apps, use GCC. GCC works and can be used with any IDE other than Visual Studio. Even Visual Studio Code can use GCC. Code::Blocks, Eclipse IDE for C/C++ developers, CLion, Notepad++ and even the good ol' tool we've always known, Notepad works with GCC. And finally, on a PC with low disk space, installing Visual Studio's "Desktop Development with C++" is something like 5 GB, if it was to be useful. And this is where GCC hits MSVC hard. It has native C support. MSVC can compile C, but only with a lot of fine-tuning. It takes a lot of time and effort to finally be able to compile. The final verdict:
If MSVC works, it hella works! If MSVC doesn't work, it HELLA DON'T WORK.
If GCC installs, it works, and if it doesn't work, it's the IDE's problem.
GCC is for people who don't mind spending 4 hours at the computer making it work properly. MSVC is for those who don't care about C and want it to install without any pokin' around.
It can't be used as a direct swap-out replacement for the microsoft compilers, for a start it has a vastly different set of command line arguments and compiler specific options.
You can make use of MinGW or Cygwin to write software but introduce extra dependencies ( especially in the case of cygwin ).
One not often touted advantage of gcc over cl is that gcc can be used with ccache to drastically speed up rebuilds or distcc to build using several other machines as compiler slaves.
Consider the Intel compiler (or "Composer" as they seem to have taken to calling it) as another option. I'm not too sure where its C++11 support is at compared with MS (certainly it has lambdas), but it does integrate very nicely with VisualStudio (e.g different projects within a solution can use the Intel or MS compilers) and there's also been some efforts made to match the MS compiler commandline options.
GCC and MSVC use different name mangling conventions for C++. C++ dlls compiled by one compiler can not be used in applications compiled with the other. I believe this is the main reason we don't see more widespread use of gcc in windows.
Related
Some open source projects explicitly state that in order to compile on windows, they need a microsoft compiler (often a specific version as well, as latter versions are incompatible or will refuse to compile older code).
Since it seems absurd to me that, since there are foss compilers that can compile for windows, a microsoft compiler would be necessary for any fundamental task, I'm assuming this is because those projects use api calls to libraries (such as msvcrt*.dll) that, for some reason, mingw-gcc, clang and other ports of compilers for windows are unable to compile against.
My understanding of these requirements is shallow, since my experience with compiled code comes primarily from linux and this worries me, since getting a microsoft compiler is non-trivial. the only way to get them is through the express editions of microsoft's visual c++, and even then, the most recent version will completely refuse to install on an old winxp machine like mine and the only version available at the moment is vc++express2010, which requires registrations to turn from trialware into freeware (and even then i'm not clear on if that'll work or what it entails - perhaps OS hooks to "debug" and other intereference?).
1) My question is, do these projects depend on microsoft compilers due to building against these microsoft-only libraries (which apparently foss compilers can't do)?
It would seem absurd if the reason is the build script or preprocessor directives, since those can be relatively easily ported.
2) Also, is it possible that, even if I avoid any msvcrt/.net/etc. calls, i can still find myself needing a microsoft compiler to compile native windows software (assuming no usage of libraries that do perform those calls)?
3) Can I simply use clang and some widget library to make native windows software just as well?
4) Can I modify the source of a project so that it doesn't depend on a microsoft compiler?
(ok that's 4 questions, sorry, this is quite hard for me to express clearly).
1) My question is, do these projects depend on microsoft compilers due
to building against these microsoft-only libraries (which apparently
foss compilers can't do)?
Compiler vendors and GUI framework vendors can supply DLLs that perform similar to the MS DLLs. Some of the MS DLLs are system DLLs and are used by the other compiler and framework vendors.
If you are using compiler or framework specific DLLs, they need to accompany the installation of your programs (projects).
2) Also, is it possible that, even if I avoid any msvcrt/.net/etc.
calls, i can still find myself needing a microsoft compiler to compile
native windows software (assuming no usage of libraries that do
perform those calls)?
No. If you scan through the posts on StackOverflow, there are many people who are using the Windows API directly, I guess what you are calling native windows software. Usually, the code for these API are located in a system API. The compiler translates the function call to a call into these DLLs, loading them as necessary.
3) Can I simply use clang and some widget library to make native
windows software just as well?
No, you can't. That's why they exist.
Again, many people are using frameworks like Qt and xWidgets without the MS compilers. I did that for a while. I switched over to Visual Studio, primarily for the debugger. I didn't like how other IDEs tried to use GDB. Otherwise, I wouldn't use MS because they tend to go by the Microsoft Standard language rather than the ISO.
4) Can I modify the source of a project so that it doesn't depend on a
microsoft compiler?
No, that is why there are freeware and other compilers out there.
Hmmm, one can use Java to create GUIs that don't use the MS compiler, but they use the Windows API.
Try installing Cygwin. When you look at all the libraries you will realize that projects can be created that don't use the MS Compiler. Again, read through the StackOverflow posts and you will find that people are using other compilers, such as Intel, GNU, Clang, Greenhills and others. Some compilers for embedded systems will also compile for Windows OS, so you can write code that works on both platforms.
Looks like you need to search the web for "GNU GUI tutorial C++" and see what pops up. Also, search for "wxWidgets" and "Qt" for other frameworks.
I'm wondering how well writing software in C++11 works on Windows yet. It would be most comfortable (and propably most natural) to use one of the native compilers for Windows - I'm thinking about Visual Studio 2012 Express or Visual Studio 2013 Express here. Everything I could find so far on that matter is
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/vstudio/hh567368.aspx
(Comparison of C++11 features of VC10 and VC11, which seems to be quite bad)
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2013/06/28/c-11-14-stl-features-fixes-and-breaking-changes-in-vs-2013.aspx (not really transparent, didn't give me a good idea how well it works)
Does anyone have any experience how well the current Visual Studio versions can handle C++11? I really want to start using auto, lambdas, variadic templates, template aliases, initializer lists and rvalue references (to name just a few) and all the other good stuff right now, but if Windows might be a problem I might have to use C++03 further.
Another possibility seems to be to install LLVM and Clang on Windows. My primary platform is OSX, and on that system Clang's support for C++11 is really good. But I read that the LLVM-version of the standard library for C++ (libc++) does not work well on Windows. So LLVM/clang might not be an option.
What are your opinions on C++11 development on Windows?
Thank you!
I can only give you my experience as a developer, as I've been building against the cutting edge of C++ on Windows using Visual C++ for just about everything, while also installing several other compilers and IDEs (including building Clang myself on Windows for Visual Studio 2012, 2012 CTP, and 2013 Preview). The following is my experience up until right now (August 13th, 2013), and is based on Herb Sutter's talk and working with the compiler every day.
The Quick
Run in the opposite direction of Visual Studio / VC++. Support for C++11 is slow, and they're currently being crushed in terms of compiler features versus Clang and GCC.
The Present
Visual C++'s C++11 (and C++14 support) is beyond abysmal right now. They lack powerful features that make template metaprogramming in C++ great (using expressions in particular).
Using doesn't exist right now. I have spent hours and hours porting great C++11 code with using to VC++, only to have it break it certain places, snap, or just become near damn unmaintainable.
Variadic support in the CTP was horrifically terrible, and while it got better for Visual Studio 2013 Preview's version of the compiler, it's still fairly bad at complex variadic and template expressions that obey the standard (and compile fine in GCC and Clang).
=delete and =default are pretty much gone from VC++ right now; in the hopeful near future, maybe it will work out (and it should come "soon-ish", according to the roadmap) (I had to implement r-value constructors explicitly for many simple classes all the way down a 8-class inheritance hierarchy once. It was the worst slap in the face, when I watched GCC and Clang users get all of my explicit hardcoded work for free with =default).
As a holdover (primarily because of Windows OS code and some binary compatabilities), Empty-Base-Class-Optomizations in VC++ don't work. Don't expect your class hierarchy sizes or member layout to be optimized in the least (watch your ordering in std::tuple when packing variable types).
This is about all the frustrations I've come into contact with so far. They're work-aroundable -- I have to work with them every day -- but if you want great C++ support, you should jump for GCC or Clang and somehow make it work on your machine.
The Future
If you really want C++11, you will need to wait about a year, and even then Visual Studio 2013's release of VC++ will still be missing a few features (and don't expect them to be bugless either). VC++ for 2013 will also still be critically missing std::move and explicit r-value support in many places, making it painful when you expect things to work.
The Caveat
If you're not a powerful Vim user, you're low on options when it comes to IDEs that you can work with (that play nice with GDB/GCC or Clang).
QtCreator is nice, works with MinGW, and is generally fully featured enough to get work done.
Sublime Text can be used, but you'll have to write your own building system or delegate that to something else.
Code::Blocks's autocomplete is wonky and behaves strangely, and the IDE itself feels clunky.
Eclipse is supposed to be good, but my experiences with it are clunky and strange, with odd input lags at time (despite a 8.00 GB i7 Haswell machine using an SSD).
Visual Studio, as an IDE, is pretty solid. Then stack Visual Assist X on top, and it works pretty damn well for C++ coding. It's really the only reason I continue to stick with it, but I've already made headway into learning Vim so I can mostly ditch Visual Studio altogether, when the time comes.
About Libraries
Library support in VC++ is pretty complete (for as much as their broken compiler lets them be complete). It has regex, while most other libraries have non-existent or broken regex support. But that doesn't mean that the VC++ library plays nice with some C++11 features that it says it does (picture by melak47).
And Lastly
If you want code that you know is going to work in Windows, 100%, for the rest of eternity, you'll probably want to program against VC++. The other "benefit" is that the code you write in VC++ is the smallest subset of C++/C++11 you can write with, so in the end it should compile everywhere. Of course, that goes against the very idea of using beautiful C++11 and enjoying it, so... pick your poison(s) wisely.
VC's C++11 support is far from complete, but it does include the most important user-facing features.
And here's the other thing. In my experience, it is fine to install MinGW or Clang on Windows, but you're going to have some inconvenience because hardly anybody precompiles binaries for those compilers for Windows (whereas lots of people precompile binaries for Visual Studio).
In addition, there are as far as I am aware no environments for Windows which are remotely as advanced as Visual Studio for things like graphical debugging, intellisense, and stuff like that. When I tried Code::Blocks it just didn't work, realistically.
You can see here for a comprehensive comparison of compiler support for C++11 language features. Here's some info on VS's C++11/14 roadmap.
MSVC is lagging behind the other major C++ compilers but it's still got support for many of the most important features.
auto, lambdas, and rvalue references are available from VS10. IIRC there's a caveat with rvalue references that the compiler doesn't generate move construction and move assignment operators.
variadic templates and initializer lists are available in the VS2013 preview, including library support.
type aliasing (i.e., typedefs with the using keyword) is expected to be available in VS 2013 RTM.
If you don't need to interoperate with binaries generated by VS then installing another compiler such as GCC is workable. I understand Clang can also work in a mingw environment, with libstdc++ rather than libc++.
http://nuwen.net/mingw.html
The nuwen distro is AWESOME! It is MinGW but it comes out much quicker than MinGW as new GCC releases come out. It also comes with all of boost and other useful libraries already compiled. It is all I use on windows anymore.
We are using C++11 for a few months already in production software across windows and linux in some here.com products without any problems. We use auto, lambdas, range for... Using Visual studio 2012 and gcc 4.7.
I have been using VS2012 and used C++11 features where possible. There are some bugs in the implementations and I have found it helpful to have another compiler to hand when I get errors from Visual Studio to compare against.
Clang and GCC to lead the way in terms of C++11 feature support and it appears to be a neck-and-neck race in terms of C++11 support between the two. MSVC is sadly panting trying to keep up and lagging behind. The Nuwen MingGW distro is, as Jake mentions, excellent and appears to be working well with Eclipse (Kepler release) and I didn't encounter too much pain using it with Netbeans 7.4 either. The Nuwen distro is currently at version 11.2 at the time of writing and, as you can see at Stephan's website, is now x64-native, featuring GCC 4.8.1 and Boost 1.54.0, with GCC's default mode also set to C++11.
I'm certainly beginning to use Eclipse Kepler and Nuwen MinGW in preference to MSVC 2012 more and more, but I'm largely a hobbyist C++ programmer still getting my feet wet and may not have hit the more obscure problems that those to whom C++ is their bread and butter may know about.
I like the Visual Studio IDE. I'm used to it and find it is the best IDE I've ever tried. We also find increasing use of C#/.NET here.
However, after the underwhelming announcement regarding C++11 features in VS11 I'm looking into replacing the compiler.
It seems that the Intel compiler fully integrates with VS but that doesn't mean it will compile our Windows code. I don't know how I'd fare with a try of g++ or clang
Can VS actually be productively used with a different C++ compiler to compile Windows code, that is legacy code using all kinds of Win32 / MFC / COM stuff?
Depends on how much use you made of the Microsoft-proprietary extensions. Things like #pragma once tend to be supported by all the major compilers, but the weirder COM things (e.g., #import and anything C++/CLI) probably won't be. No idea if MFC will build under the new compiler, but you'll probably have to link it statically or ship your own DLL; G++ definitely uses a different mangling scheme than MSVC.
I'm not sure how easy it is to replace cl.exe and keep your vcproj files intact (though some compilers actually do it), but there are always Makefile projects.
I have never actually worked with the Intel C++ compiler, but I see no reason why it wouldn't compile the code that VC++ does. Here is official Intel documentation.
I use Visual Studio 2008 with a Makefile project to cross-compile; no reason you couldn't do the same with a different Windows compiler.
I am trying to figure out which C/C++ compiler to use. I found this list of C/C++ compilers at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compilers#C.2FC.2B.2B_compilers
I am fairly certain that I want to go with an open source compiler. I feel that if it is open source then it will be a more complete compiler since many programmer perspectives are used to make it better. Please tell me if you disagree.
I should mention that I plan on learning C/C++ mainly to program 2D/3D game applications that will be compatible with Windows, Linux, MAC and iPhone operating systems. I am currently using Windows Vista x64 OS.
First of all, IMHO as a beginner your development environment (IDE) matters a lot more than the compiler.
I think that people place too much emphasis on compiler choice early on. While it is not Java, C++ is meant to be portable.
If the program you're writing only works with specific compilers, you're probably doing the wrong thing or can work a little on making it more portable.
If you get to a point where compiler choice makes a significant performance impact for you, then you've already perfected everything else in your program and you're in a good state and you are also quite advanced in your abilities. We used to teach the differences between compilers at fairly advanced stages in the CS curriculum.
If you use a UNIX based machine (Linux, Mac, actual Linux), then pretty much GNU (g++) is the way to go and is fairly much standard. If it's good enough to compile your OS, it's probably good enough for you. On a mac you can use XCode as your IDE, and it interfaces well with g++. On Linux some people prefer command line tools, though you might like the Eclipse C++ support, it is much better today than it was 3-4 years ago.
Things on Windows are trickier. If you can afford it, have access to, or are eligible for one of the free editions (e.g., via a school), I think the Microsoft Visual C++ Environments (or whatever they are called now) are pretty good for learning and they are used in production. I think there's actually a lightweight visual studio now with an emphasis on C++ that could be a good start. If you don't, you can probably find a distribution of Eclipse that is specific for C++ and includes an implementation of the GNU compilers.
Use gcc and g++ while you're still learning these languages, a big enough task for now. If you need a specialized compiler down the road, you'll want to have much deeper understanding of the language and your problem domain to properly evaluate candidates.
I feel that if it is open source then it will be a more complete compiler since many programmer perspectives are used to make it better.
That's not necessarily true. You could also say that if you use Microsoft's compiler, it will be optimal for Windows, since Microsoft knows best how to optimize a compiler for Windows.
Microsoft has Visual C++ Express Edition which is free and ofcourse includes a nice IDE that's very well suited for Windows development.
But if you're interested in making portable software, look at GCC, which is the default compiler on Linux and which is also available on the Mac. (The iPhone works totally different and requires special tools that only run on Mac OS X). You can get GCC for Windows with Cygwin or MinGW.
Get the Visual Studio Express (easier and quicker IMO, to setup) and learn with it; when you think you know enough about C++ and how "things" work, you could start using something like QT or GCC (with cygwin) and learn to port to different platforms.
For windows u can use CodeBlocks I believe it uses gcc and its pretty user friendly
I strongly suggest going with MinGW.
It is:
Open-source
Available on all major platforms
Comes with standard Win32 headers and libraries
The key to writing portable C++ code is:
Use a cross-platform version control system (subversion is a great choice), because this makes it easier to
Compile and test your code on other platforms early and often
Currently I`m using Visual Studio for writing code in C++. But it seems so weighty that I decided to switch for another one, preferably free, not so strict to system resources (I mean memory, of course) as VS to learn libraries, such as Boost and Qt. What compiler do you suggest?
I'd suggest using Visual Studio's compiler from the command-line. You get the same high-quality compiler, without the resource-hogging IDE.
Although the IDE is pretty good too, and probably worth the resources it uses.
Code::blocks is exactly what you are after. You can can download it here: http://www.codeblocks.org/downloads/5
Choose the version with the mingw compiler bundled with it (Windows port of GCC). You can switch between that and the VC++ compiler as and when you like.
Code::Blocks has all the stuff you want, debugger integration, code completion, class browser, todo list etc. etc. It even import visual C++ projects.
Don't use Dev C++ which has already been recommended. It's very very old and outdated.
If you want to learn unix tools download and install cygwin It's a good set of tools but a full install takes up 5 or 6 gigs because so much is included.
There is always Digital Mars. Also, you can freely download Microsoft WDK
which comes with their C/C++ compiler and command-line build system.
You will be hard-pressed to find an IDE as capable as MS VS. It is incredibly feature-rich.
However, if you just want command line compiling and linking it can do that too.
GCC is also an option.
Please note that you do not need another compiler or IDE to use boost libraries. I wouldn't replace Visual Studio with any other IDE/compiler, at least not on Windows. Installing Cygwin or SUA (better than Cygwin, closer to the Windows Kernel) will only be a pain just for what you are trying to reach.
Try to minimize the memory usage by disabling unnecessary things, keep the amount of open source files small, use an alternative to document explorer to find help (your browser on msdn will do). Besides that, I wouldn't call a few ten megabytes of memory a high usage. As long as it doesn't slow your system down there is not a real issue.
A better idea would be to upgrade your computer rather than to replace something powerful with something that you don't know.
Seriously there is no real alternative to Ms's compiler on Windows. All the others are OK if you can't spring for Visual Studio or if you are just doing hobbyist work. Cygwin can be a pain to deal with.
If you don't want the IDE as someone else suggested just use the command-line compiler.
I've found VS to be quite good for doing Boost + Qt work. Especially if you have the Qt + VS integration tool. You get a GUI designer and respectable Qt project management tools.
If you are looking for a compiler that uses fewer system resources than the MS ones, you'll probably find that most modern compilers that are able to compile a good part of or almost everything in Boost will be quite heavy on system resources, both processor usage and memory consumption. To a certain extent that's just par for the course when it comes to C++.
That said, I do like to have a second compiler around if I'm writing portable code as it's a lot easier to iron out portability issues when you can ensure that the code compiles in different environments. If you want to do all that on Windows, may Cygwin is worth a look. However it does seem that the GCC you get with Cygwin is not exactly what you'd call up to date.
The aforementioned Digital Mars compilers are well worth a look, Walter Bright (the guy behind them) has been writing C++ compilers for a long time and they're pretty good. I have used them off and on since the early nineties and I've always been happy with them. Not to mention that they always seemed noticeably faster than the Microsoft offerings, but I haven't got any recent measurements to back that up.
At the end of the day, most third-party tool vendors on Windows tend to target the MS environment so if you're writing C++ code professionally and need/want tools like leak detectors, you pretty much need to be able to build with the MS compilers, even if they aren't your main development environment.
I sugget , Netbeans.org
NetBeans IDE , download the Cygwin , follow one tutorial from http://www.netbeans.org for C++ confuguration at Netbeans IDE , just 2 steps.. and u are ok
autocomplete (faster than VS')
classes
and all... you want xD
It needs to mention about DevCpp. It is a simple UI wrap for gcc compiler (oh my, it is sounds like a tautology). It provides lightweight IDE but not so stable (so, its IntelliSense is somewhat buggy).
If you use Qt why not use their IDE, QtCreator, there is compiler, debugger and GUI designer. All comes in one nice package and works on Windows, Mac and Linux.
In my opinion it's better than Code::Blocks (also based on MinGW/GCC).