Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Janis Papanagnou Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: question about linker Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 16:20:50 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 65 Message-ID: References: <87frnbt9jn.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <877c8nt255.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <20241129142810.00007920@yahoo.com> <20241129161517.000010b8@yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 16:20:53 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1b09dde754c97ece6b7db369c535a6ff"; logging-data="2655431"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Tcg/cK7uKV17jdQVExen8" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:lKRXGm0u3xHJMxvQxb/aKvwDCWA= In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110 Bytes: 4046 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. Aren't those original words, experiences, and suggestions clear to you? (I have neither a reason nor an agenda to downplay any compiler. - Why do you, again, make such imputations that are typically 98% wrong; in your case yet even 100% wrong.) > >> And I cannot find any statement that "he likes compile speed", he just >> stated that it is very fast (which seems to just have astonished him). > > This looks like the original source: > > [link snipped] This webpage contains the same text as the file in the package that I quoted; it came from the file ./doc/gawkworkflow.info packaged with the GNU Awk tarfile. Janis > > This is what it said just before: > [...]