Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<v5lfq9$35vli$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!feed.opticnetworks.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Baby X is bor nagain
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 06:56:41 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <v5lfq9$35vli$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v494f9$von8$1@dont-email.me> <v53i4s$33k73$2@dont-email.me>
 <v53lf7$34huc$1@dont-email.me> <v53vh6$368vf$1@dont-email.me>
 <v54se1$3bqsk$1@dont-email.me> <20240624160941.0000646a@yahoo.com>
 <v5bu5r$va3a$1@dont-email.me> <20240624181006.00003b94@yahoo.com>
 <v5c86d$11ac7$1@dont-email.me> <JEheO.108086$ED9b.74955@fx11.iad>
 <v5cblg$11q0j$1@dont-email.me> <gEieO.108089$ED9b.25598@fx11.iad>
 <20240625113616.000075e0@yahoo.com> <mUzeO.141609$Cqra.55051@fx10.iad>
 <v5elql$1jmii$1@dont-email.me> <m3BeO.24907$Gurd.16179@fx34.iad>
 <v5empd$1jndv$2@dont-email.me> <v5eph4$1k6a9$1@dont-email.me>
 <87ed8jnbmf.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <v5jhls$2m7np$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5jm32$2nqvp$1@dont-email.me> <v5k3v2$2qllm$1@dont-email.me>
 <v5kfst$2svt3$1@dont-email.me> <v5kmlm$2u918$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2024 06:56:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="bf40efe0c39ba8d79a43bb26c433479f";
	logging-data="3342002"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18cxFdcANWBpBLsix4ff7NsModzaMpQXEo="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kGeAswaOVTaR/Fxgkog9gcScoaM=
In-Reply-To: <v5kmlm$2u918$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 5243

On 27/06/2024 23:47, bart wrote:
> On 27/06/2024 20:51, David Brown wrote:
>> On 27/06/2024 18:28, bart wrote:
>>> On 27/06/2024 13:31, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 27/06/2024 13:16, bart wrote:
>>>
>>

>> No one doubts that gcc is slower than tcc.  That is primarily because 
>> it does vastly more, and is a vastly more useful tool.  And for most C 
>> compiles, gcc (even gcc -O2) is more than fast enough.
> 
> 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.
> 

With most of your compiles, is "gcc -O2" too slow to compile?  If not, 
then why would you or anyone else actively /choose/ to have a poorer 
quality output and poorer quality warnings?  I appreciate that fast 
enough output is fast enough (just as I say the same for compilation 
speed) - but choosing a slower output when a faster one is just as easy 
makes little sense.  The only reason I can think of why "gcc -O2 -Wall" 
is not the starting point for compiler flags is because you write poor C 
code and don't want your compiler to tell you so!

> 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.
> 
> 
> 
>> And it is free, and easily available on common systems.  Therefore 
>> there is no benefit to using tcc except in very niche cases.
> 
> And my argument would be the opposite. The use of gcc would be the 
> exception. (Long before I used gcc or tcc, I used lccwin32.)

On Linux, almost everyone uses gcc, except for a proportion who actively 
choose to use clang or icc.  The same applies to other many other *nix 
systems, though some people will use their system compiler on commercial 
Unixes.  For Macs, it is clang disguised as gcc that dominates.  On 
Windows, few people use C for native code (C++, C# and other languages 
dominate).  I expect the majority use MSVC for C, and there will be 
people using a variety of other tools including lcc-win and Borland, as 
well as gcc in various packagings.  (And embedded developers use 
whatever cross-compile tools are appropriate for their target, 
regardless of the host - the great majority use gcc now.)

I don't believe that in any graph of compiler usage on any platform, tcc 
would show up as anything more than a tiny sliver under "others".

> 
> Here's the result of an experiment I did. gcc 14 is about 800MB and over 
> 10,000 files. I wanted to see the minimal set of files that would 
> compile one of my generated C files.

Why?  800 MB is a few pence worth of disk space.  For almost all uses, 
it simply doesn't matter.

> 
> I can't explain to somebody who doesn't get it why a small, simple tool 
> is desirable.
> 

If you were trying to say that tcc is simpler to /use/ than gcc, that 
would be a different matter entirely.  That would be a relevant factor. 
The size of the gcc installation, is all hidden behind the scenes.  Few 
people know how big it is on their system, fewer still care.

(And I am not sure I agree with such a claim - certainly you /can/ have 
very advanced and complicated use of gcc.  But in comparison to learning 
C itself, running "gcc -Wall -O2 -o hello hello.c" is hardly rocket 
science.  But I would certainly be much more open to a "simpler to use" 
argument.)