Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: bart 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: 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; 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: 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.