Re: Baby X is bor nagain

On 18/06/2024 13:40, David Brown wrote:

On 17/06/2024 21:24, bart wrote:

On 17/06/2024 14:43, David Brown wrote:

On 17/06/2024 12:30, bart wrote:

On 17/06/2024 07:22, James Kuyper wrote:

On 6/13/24 10:43, Michael S wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 13:53:54 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

...

 

If you don't need optimised code right now, why would you invoke gcc rather than tcc? It's a no-brainer.

 You might use tcc if you have no brain.  People who do C development seriously don't use the compiler just to generate an exe file.  gcc is a development tool, not just a compiler.  (As is clang, and MSVC.)  If you think compilation speed of a subset of C is all that matters, you are not doing C development.
 

It's all that mattered in the context that you snipped. Which actually /isn't/ C development; the C has been generated by a program. This hardly an uncommon use of a C compiler; there, all you want of it is (1) to generate executable code (2) perhaps make it generate fast code.
There are a number of use-cases where the extra capabilities of C aren't relevant.
If I do this:
     gcc prog.c
     del a.exe
where 'del a.exe' is done by mistake (or perhaps I do 'gcc prog2.c' which wipes out a.exe; I like super-smart compilers!), then I have to do 'gcc prog.c' again.
But it has already been analysed, and nothing has changed; I just want a translation from .c file to .exe file.