Re: question about linker

On 12/12/2024 15:20, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

On 12.12.2024 15:37, bart wrote:

On 12/12/2024 14:03, Janis Papanagnou wrote:

On 11.12.2024 16:03, David Brown wrote:

On 11/12/2024 06:37, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>

Concerning tcc, they have explicit endorsment from gawk developer:
he likes compile speed and says that gawk compiles fine using tcc.

>
Who was that?
>
What I find documented in the GNU Awk package was this:
>
       _The Tiny C Compiler, 'tcc'_
>
       This compiler is _very_ fast, but it produces only mediocre code.
       It is capable of compiling 'gawk', and it does so well enough that
       'make check' runs without errors.
>
       However, in the past the quality has varied, and the maintainer has
       had problems with it.  He recommends using it for regular
       development, where fast compiles are important, but rebuilding with
       GCC before doing any commits, in case 'tcc' has missed
       something.(1)
>
       [...]
>
       (1) This bit the maintainer once.
>
That doesn't quite sound like the GNU Awk folks would think it's a good
tool or anything even close ("mediocre code", "well enough", "runs
without errors", "quality has varied", "had problems with it") And that
it's obviously not trustworthy given the suggestion: "rebuilding with
GCC before doing any commits".

>
This sounds like you imposing your own interpretion, and trying to
downplay the credibility of TCC.

 You don't think all these words are a clear indication? - The original
text you see above is almost just a concatenation of all these negative
connoted words. It really doesn't need any own words or interpretation.

That's the point: you've extracted only the negative words to give a misleading picture. How about highlighting these as well:
"very slow" about gcc/lang (from original link)
"_very_ fast" about tcc (their emphasis)
"in the past ... /has had/ problems with it" (my emphasis)
"recommends using it [TCC] for regular development"
The conclusion from that link is not to dismiss the tool completely but to use it in conjunction with a bigger compiler.

Aren't those original words, experiences, and suggestions clear to you?

Not when they are extracted out of context in order to reinforce your view.

(I have neither a reason nor an agenda to downplay any compiler.

Yet, you clearly are downplaying it.