Re: [dev] Optimizing C compiler & c++ compiler/runtime

From: pancake <pancake_AT_youterm.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:04:06 +0100

Tcc is actively maintained. Just check the mailing list or the git repo.



> On 20 Dec 2013, at 16:35, Paul Onyschuk <blink_AT_bojary.koba.pl> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:49:43 +0100
> Sylvain BERTRAND <sylware_AT_legeek.net> wrote:
>
>> Is there any remaining good c++ compiler/runtime which can
>> boostrap using a C compiler/minimal runtime?
>>
>> Since, it's near impossible to re-write/unroll all the
>> "mandatory" c++ components in C quickly (harfbuzz,
>> gecko/webkit...), what to do? Any suggestions?
>
> Not that I'm aware of, beside I'm not sure what benefits this would
> bring? You're fine with C++ in one place, but not the other?
>
>> There is also the question of finding a new C99 optimizing
>> compiler written properly in C of course.
>>
>> Anything else?
>
> This is valid question on other hand e.g. base OpenBSD is C++ free for
> some time AFAIK (after the removal of groff). Idea of minimal set of
> tools, capable of rebuilding itself is attractive.
>
> On one hand, you can use pretty old GCC and most of C codebase will
> compile just fine (OpenBSD still uses patched GCC v4.2.1, which is more
> than six years old). C is stable - you will more likely see changes in
> standard C library, than compiler/language itself. GCC v4.7.x should
> work just fine for some years to come.
>
> C++ is different kind of beast. More and more software requires C++11
> features and this means very recent version of compilers, especially
> since C++ standard libraries are developed inside the same projects
> (GCC/libstdc++, Clang/libc++). Sticking to GCC v4.7.x isn't an option
> here as far I can tell.
>
> The last problem: C99-capable compiler isn't enough to get usable
> system based on Linux. Clang which was designed as GCC drop-in
> replacement chokes on Linux kernel (some patches are needed), because
> it heavily uses GCC extensions and specific features (some
> undocumented/undefined).
>
> PCC/TCC aren't actively developed, I'm not sure about the status of
> firm/CParser. Still those alternative C compilers are just good
> enough for specific programs and not larger set of packages.
>
> --
> Paul Onyschuk
>
Received on Fri Dec 20 2013 - 17:04:06 CET