Re: question about linker

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.

And I cannot find any statement that "he likes compile speed", he just
stated that it is very fast (which seems to just have astonished him).

This looks like the original source:
https://www.gnu.org/software/gawk/manual/gawkworkflow/html_node/Compilers.html
This is what it said just before:
"Both GCC and clang are highly optimizing compilers that produce good code, but are very slow"
It goes on:
"There are two other compilers [TCC and PCC] that are faster, but that may not produce quite as good code. However, they are both reasonable for doing development."
This is part of what you quoted:
" He recommends using it for regular development, where fast compiles are important"
So, this source says that gcc/clang are 'very slow'. It says 'fast compiles are important'. 'They [TCC/PCC] are reasonable for doing development'.
What it doesn't say is to forget gcc/clang and use only TCC.
Basically it says what I've been saying all along: use a fast compiler for development, and a slow one for production or when you want a more in-depth analysis of your code. But everybody says I've no idea what I'm talking about or that I'm the only person on the planet with that view.