Re: [dev] Yet another "sane alternatives" thread

From: stephen Turner <>
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 08:21:24 -0500

> On Dec 27, 2018, at 12:36 AM, Martin Tournoij <> wrote:

> I am disappointed to see that clang compilation speeds are a lot slower
> than what they used to be. The disadvantage of tcc is that it does
> almost no optimisations, so even simple programs will run slower. My
> solution is to use tcc as the default, and gcc when installing stuff.

After hearing you guys use tcc I went back on a hunt and found the live branch, it is fast!

I see it’s more active than pcc on development which is good but optimizations would be great just to replace gcc on a more perm basis. How suckles is adding optimizations to tcc? Would that turn it into a mess like gcc or is it something that either hasn’t been a priority yet or isn’t within the scope of the project?

Thinking out loud here but most things can be scripted, perhaps even a makefile conversion to avoid make? A conversion would be even better for someone who maintains their own distro since packages could be converted in advance and not need to run the script at compile time.

Altho some packages are fairly complex, a conversion script likely wouldn’t be a simple task but I would imagine still simpler than a new make and an investment in moving away from it.

Received on Thu Dec 27 2018 - 14:21:24 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Dec 27 2018 - 14:24:07 CET