Path: ...!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: question about linker
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2024 17:06:24 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <vj1rq0$35lal$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vi54e9$3ie0o$1@dont-email.me> <viifv8$2opi7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vik28b$390eg$1@dont-email.me> <vik8tc$3ang9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vikjff$3dgvc$1@dont-email.me> <viku00$3gamg$1@dont-email.me>
 <vil0qc$3fqqa$3@dont-email.me> <vil82t$3ie9o$2@dont-email.me>
 <vila9j$3j4dg$1@dont-email.me> <vin4su$49a6$1@dont-email.me>
 <vin95m$5da6$1@dont-email.me> <vinh3h$7ppb$1@dont-email.me>
 <vinjf8$8jur$1@dont-email.me> <vip5rf$p44n$1@dont-email.me>
 <viprao$umjj$1@dont-email.me> <viqfk9$13esp$1@dont-email.me>
 <vir5kp$3hjd9$1@paganini.bofh.team> <vishtd$1mnq1$1@dont-email.me>
 <visola$1ohbl$1@dont-email.me> <vivdb8$2foo6$1@dont-email.me>
 <viviqe$2gvqj$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2024 17:06:24 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="9d978002c106e9d0b3252c03f89413c6";
	logging-data="3331413"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19IDrJHj+1N0DyvfSHMBWZMciL+ILd/6Gs="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:IynumyqEBFQHQ1ShWCMNuxhzffQ=
In-Reply-To: <viviqe$2gvqj$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 3364

On 06/12/2024 20:20, Bart wrote:
> 
> On 06/12/2024 17:47, David Brown wrote:
>  > On 05/12/2024 18:42, Bart wrote:
> 
>  >> A big one is when C is used an intermediate language for a compiler.
>  >
>  > Why would that be relevant?  If you compile language X by first 
> transpiling to C, then compiling C, then the time to compile language X 
> is the sum of these.  A fast or slow C compiler is no more and no less 
> relevant here than if you were just compiling C.
> 
> You don't give do you?!
> 
> If your task to get from A to B was split into two, you'd be happy to do 
> the first part by a fast car, then complete the rest of it on a horse 
> and cart, for no reason at all?
> 

The comparison was between C to object code (with a real compiler) and 
from X to C and then to the object code (using a real compiler).  If 
your beliefs were true that gcc (and other proper C compilers) are 
incredibly slow, why would it make any difference if someone is starting 
from X or starting from C?  In both cases, compilation would take a long 
time - C compilation speed is neither more nor less important whether 
you are programming in X or C.

And you are the only one so far who finds gcc to be inconveniently slow.

Of course we'd all be happy if gcc were faster, but for most people 
working in C, it is usually fast enough.  In particular, for /me/ it has 
always been fast enough.  I have never felt I had to wait significantly 
for compilation of my own projects.  Certainly I have never even 
considered to switching to something inferior - even "gcc -O0" - in 
order to speed up building code.

(People tend to be much more bothered by the speed of C++ compilation 
rather than C compilation.)