Re: Baby X is bor nagain

bart <bc@freeuk.com> writes:

On 18/06/2024 14:39, James Kuyper wrote:

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

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

 
On virtually every occasion when I've heard someone claim that a given
decision is a no-brainer, I would generally make a different decision if
I actually applied my brain to the issue. This is no exception.
 

>
So your brain would tell you to choose a tool which takes at least 10
times as long to do the same task?

No, "the task" isn't "compile a program", it's "develop a program",
which includes only a quite negligible amount of time spent compiling it.
What I know about TCC is relatively limited, but the Wikipedia article
is consistent with what I though I knew. It says that tcc supports all
of the features of C90, most of C99, and some gnu extensions. That is
not the dialect of C I want to write in. I want full conformance with
the latest official version of C, with any unintentional use of gnu
extensions flagged with a diagnostic.
Having to write my code in a crippled version of C would be a waste of
my time, and having to fix it to take advantage of the features of a
more modern version of C when I'm ready to optimize it would be a
further waste of time. I'd save far more development time by writing in
the same dialect of C from the very beginning, then I could ever
possibly save by dividing entirely negligible compile times by a factor
of 10.