Sujet : Re: question about linker
De : bc (at) *nospam* freeuk.com (bart)
Groupes : comp.lang.cDate : 13. Dec 2024, 18:41:29
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vjhrk8$3hdv2$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 13/12/2024 16:29, David Brown wrote:
On 13/12/2024 15:20, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
- he complained about speed of gcc/clang and noted that tcc is fast.
He said that tcc is "quite fast", faster than gcc or clang, and that he liked that it was fast. That is not the same thing as a direct complaint about the speed of gcc or clang
This is the link I found:
https://www.gnu.org/software/gawk/manual/gawkworkflow/html_node/Compilers.htmlIt includes these remarks:
"Both GCC and clang are highly optimizing compilers that produce good code, but are very slow. There are two other compilers that are faster, but that may not produce quite as good code. However, they are both reasonable for doing development.
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."
So GCC/clang are described as "very slow", while Tiny C is "very fast".
It also suggests that TCC is "reasonable" for development.
- though clearly he would have been happier if those compilers had been faster. (And we all would be happier if they were faster - even those of us who find gcc fast enough for our needs.)
If that is not an endorsement, than what is?
>
It is saying that tcc is a tool you can use to compile gawk, and praise of its speed relative to gcc and clang. An endorsement would be saying that it is the compiler he likes to use or recommends using.
My link includes also this:
"He recommends using it for regular development, where fast compiles are important, but rebuilding with GCC before doing any commits"
How often are commits done relative to development builds? I assume they are less frequent here than recompiling, for the remark to make sense.
So, it does sound like tcc is prefered for most compiles.
It certainly paints, to me, a positive view of TCC rather than the negative one that you are JP seem to be intent on, even though the latter strongly claims to be 100% impartial, while accusing me of making things up.