Liste des Groupes | Revenir à cl c |
On 25/06/2024 09:19, David Brown wrote:That is not the be-all and end-all of compilers. Fortunately, real compiler developers think differently from you.
At no point in all this does anyone care in the slightest about the speed of your little toys or of the cute little tcc. tcc might be ideal for the half-dozen people in the world who think C scripts are a good idea, and it had its place in a time when "live Linux" systems were booted from floppies, but that's about it.Yet, projects like mine, and like tcc, show what is possible: just how fast should it take to turn lower level code into machine code.
Since as I said I don't see much difference in such a task compared with doing the same with assembly, or translating textual data into binary.An order of magnitude longer than negligible is still not worth bothering about. Compiler time - for C - does not matter.
So, if someone is using a tool (and perhaps language) that takes 1, 2 or 3 magnitudes longer for the same scale of task, then the trade-offs had better be worthwhile.
And it shouldn't be because the developers of the tool are lousy at writing performant code. Or they don't care. Or they expect customers to just use faster and bigger hardware.Do you think the developers of gcc don't care? Or they are just bad at writing code? Do you know how laughable that is? It is not /quite/ as bad as your usual paranoia that the developers behind C, gcc, Linux, make, and countless other things you don't understand created them just to annoy you personally.
You think it is all totally pointless? Then fuck you.I didn't say your /compiler/ was pointless. I said your "benchmarks" were pointless.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.