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.)