Re: [dev] GCC situation

From: Anselm R Garbe <garbeam_AT_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 08:17:52 +0100

On 24 November 2014 at 06:35, Markus Wichmann <nullplan_AT_gmx.net> wrote:
> Well, there's always clang. It's completely written in C++, but is way
> better organized than GCC and it is contained entirely in a lib, so it
> can be easily integrated into IDEs and other programs. If you need a C
> parser, have a look at libclang.

clang might be better organized, but I'd prefer a compiler that only
focusses on C, is written in C and thus can be bootstraped with a
plain C compiler. The monstrosity of gcc or clang (even be it better
organized) is related from the fact that they target the fully feature
C/C++[/ObjC] audience.

A compiler that would only focus on C as a language could be much
simpler, and its capabilities to produce highly optimised code for the
target arch could be based on this simplicity instead. I guess the
output would kickass all C++ binaries produced by either
msvc/g++/clang...

I see a lot of opportunity in a decent C-only compiler. Not sure if
OpenBSD achieved anything wrt its pcc porting efforts that Uriel once
pushed for.

BR,
Anselm
Received on Mon Nov 24 2014 - 08:17:52 CET