On 23 November 2014 at 17:20, Henrique Lengler
<henriqueleng_AT_openmailbox.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> What is the situation of GCC, is it bloated?
> I'm asking because I don't find too much on suckless site about it
> I don't have experience in any other compiler.
>
> I also found someday TCC (Tiny C compiler - bellard.org/tcc/)
> And it looks cool.
>
> The site shows the speed of it:
> Compiler Time(s) lines/second MBytes/second
> TinyCC 0.9.22 2.27 859000 29.6
> GCC 3.2 -O0 20.0 98000 3.4
>
> What they don't talk about is the speed of execution, wich I think
> is faster with gcc. But if I were create a suckless gcc I would
> probably fork TCC.
>
> So what do you think, GCC is ok? Or no?
>
> Regards,
> --
> Henrique Lengler
>
Certainly, GCC has a focus on speed, not simplicity. And also a large
number of arches to support. Well GCC had a similar status of IE
before there was any competition. With clang, at least now they are
competing for features and speed (gcc's warnings have gotten noticably
better in the past year or so because of this).
It might suck, it might really suck, but the beauty of a compiler is
that once it's done it's job, it's done it's job. I'd rather have a
faster pipeline and have to deal with a beast of a compiler.
Someone who knows more about plan9's compilers might be able to
comment about quality in comparison.
Received on Sun Nov 23 2014 - 23:27:17 CET
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Sun Nov 23 2014 - 23:36:08 CET