Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bart <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: question about linker
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 18:17:07 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <vjf9b3$2si2m$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vi54e9$3ie0o$1@dont-email.me>
 <87frnbt9jn.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <viaqh0$nm7q$1@dont-email.me>
 <877c8nt255.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <viasv4$nm7q$2@dont-email.me>
 <vibr1l$vvjf$1@dont-email.me> <vic73f$1205f$1@dont-email.me>
 <20241129142810.00007920@yahoo.com> <vicfra$13nl4$1@dont-email.me>
 <20241129161517.000010b8@yahoo.com> <vicque$15ium$2@dont-email.me>
 <vid110$16hte$1@dont-email.me> <vifcll$1q9rj$1@dont-email.me>
 <vifiib$1s07p$1@dont-email.me> <viht27$2hgg1$3@dont-email.me>
 <vjb8e9$1973q$1@paganini.bofh.team> <vjc9k8$1jcad$1@dont-email.me>
 <vjeqf7$25lot$1@dont-email.me> <vjesfh$25rlj$1@dont-email.me>
 <vjev0k$2h167$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 19:17:07 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="021d91925d3f1b965194e346b20c998a";
	logging-data="3033174"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18KzBYTDjhFTqKmuG5/GRGp"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:H/2nfFR33KLjffeyprzTbb6z/fw=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vjev0k$2h167$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4129

On 12/12/2024 15:20, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
> On 12.12.2024 15:37, bart wrote:
>> On 12/12/2024 14:03, Janis Papanagnou wrote:
>>> On 11.12.2024 16:03, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 11/12/2024 06:37, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Concerning tcc, they have explicit endorsment from gawk developer:
>>>>> he likes compile speed and says that gawk compiles fine using tcc.
>>>
>>> Who was that?
>>>
>>> What I find documented in the GNU Awk package was this:
>>>
>>>        _The Tiny C Compiler, 'tcc'_
>>>
>>>        This compiler is _very_ fast, but it produces only mediocre code.
>>>        It is capable of compiling 'gawk', and it does so well enough that
>>>        'make check' runs without errors.
>>>
>>>        However, in the past the quality has varied, and the maintainer has
>>>        had problems with it.  He recommends using it for regular
>>>        development, where fast compiles are important, but rebuilding with
>>>        GCC before doing any commits, in case 'tcc' has missed
>>>        something.(1)
>>>
>>>        [...]
>>>
>>>        (1) This bit the maintainer once.
>>>
>>> That doesn't quite sound like the GNU Awk folks would think it's a good
>>> tool or anything even close ("mediocre code", "well enough", "runs
>>> without errors", "quality has varied", "had problems with it") And that
>>> it's obviously not trustworthy given the suggestion: "rebuilding with
>>> GCC before doing any commits".
>>
>> This sounds like you imposing your own interpretion, and trying to
>> downplay the credibility of TCC.
> 
> You don't think all these words are a clear indication? - The original
> text you see above is almost just a concatenation of all these negative
> connoted words. It really doesn't need any own words or interpretation.

That's the point: you've extracted only the negative words to give a 
misleading picture. How about highlighting these as well:

"very slow" about gcc/lang (from original link)
"_very_ fast" about tcc (their emphasis)
"in the past ... /has had/ problems with it" (my emphasis)
"recommends using it [TCC] for regular development"

The conclusion from that link is not to dismiss the tool completely but 
to use it in conjunction with a bigger compiler.

> Aren't those original words, experiences, and suggestions clear to you?

Not when they are extracted out of context in order to reinforce your view.

> (I have neither a reason nor an agenda to downplay any compiler.

Yet, you clearly are downplaying it.