Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Python recompile
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 16:36:29 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <vrc7ed$2sm56$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vq1qas$j22$1@gallifrey.nk.ca> <20250308192940.00001351@yahoo.com>
 <vqi1ge$8jg8$1@dont-email.me> <vqmgjv$3a2il$1@paganini.bofh.team>
 <vqn4dn$1eb9s$1@dont-email.me> <vqo3ss$3hkas$1@paganini.bofh.team>
 <vqph2e$203bs$2@dont-email.me> <vqvtop$cpvn$1@paganini.bofh.team>
 <vr1nkh$1miii$1@dont-email.me> <G8_AP.37556$D_V4.24121@fx39.iad>
 <vr1uk1$1sb5s$1@dont-email.me> <874izvjs4m.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vr27td$22vgq$2@dont-email.me> <87senfi7ii.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vr2dbm$2995t$1@dont-email.me> <vr2onl$2hjmt$3@dont-email.me>
 <vr3k67$3a5r2$1@dont-email.me> <vr3li9$3bqnp$1@dont-email.me>
 <vr3php$3di63$2@dont-email.me> <vr3qa3$3fua7$1@dont-email.me>
 <vr3vup$3jjoq$1@dont-email.me> <vr4ba0$3tj6e$1@dont-email.me>
 <vr4emj$3vejc$1@dont-email.me> <vr67qo$1inip$1@dont-email.me>
 <vr6ert$1ob25$1@dont-email.me> <vr93a6$3i2s$1@dont-email.me>
 <vr9bd9$adgu$1@dont-email.me> <vr9ir0$gve3$1@dont-email.me>
 <vr9l30$id99$1@dont-email.me> <vrbfrn$2899l$1@dont-email.me>
 <vrbjme$2bne2$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2025 17:36:29 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="17e577fd37551b95a778f60cf977438f";
	logging-data="3037350"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19ZdpJn5mOAcP1RDu3FyVvp"
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Pie5fnmoEcYHQ3u6PNk1ul4RpL8=
Bytes: 2696

On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 10:59:27 +0000
bart <bc@freeuk.com> wibbled:
>On 18/03/2025 09:53, Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org wrote:
>> You'll have to excuse me if I take that figure with a large packet of salt
>> unless the code does nothing particularly complicated.
>
>If you don't believe my figures, try Tiny C on actual C programs.
>
>Tiny C is single pass, mine does multiple passes so is a little slower.
>
>What the code does is not that relevant:
>
>c:\cx\big>tim tcc fann4.c
>Time: 0.855
>
>c:\cx\big>dir fann4.exe
>18/03/2025  10:44        10,491,904 fann4.exe
>
>So tcc can generate 12MB per second in this case, for a test file of 
>nearly 1M lines.
>
>What you should find harder to believe is this figure:
>
>c:\cx\big>tim gcc fann4.c
>Time: 50.571                       (44.2 on subsequent build)

Without seeing some of the code its impossible to know though I imagine gcc
isn't optimised for Windows.