Re: Baby X is bor nagain

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

On 28/06/2024 11:26, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>

On 2024-06-28, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>

On 28/06/2024 04:23, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>

On 2024-06-27, bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>

And for most of /my/ compiles, the code produced by gcc-O0 is
fast enough.  It also about the same speed as code produced by
one of my compilers.
>
So I tend to use it when I want the extra speed, or other
compilers don't work, or when a particular app only builds
with that compiler.
>
Otherwise the extra overheads are not worth the bother.

>
How good are your diagnostics compared to GCC -O2, plus -Wall
and -W?

>
Using products like tcc doesn't mean never using gcc.
(Especially on Linux where you will have it installed anyway.)
>
You can use the latter to do extra, periodic checks that the
simpler compiler may have missed, or to produce faster production
builds.
>
But gcc is not needed for routine compilation.

>
Catching common bugs in routine compilation is better than once
a month.
>
You could be wasting time debugging something where GCC would have
told you right away you have something uninitialized or whatever.

>
Let's take the C program below.  It has 4 things wrong with it,
marked with comments.
>
[...]

People are never going to take you seriously as long as
you keep offering what are obviously strawman arguments,
and especially ones where you know better but pretend
that you don't.