[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Tinycc-devel] (no subject)

From: Philippe Ribet
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] (no subject)
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:14:35 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040413 Debian/1.6-5

Guillaume POIRIER wrote:


On 9/7/06, Mike B <address@hidden> wrote:

Is there a road map, or a todo list for this project? I was wondering how
much work there is to do to make this into a GCC drop in replacement?

Please keep in mind that the years of experience that GCC has make it
generate much better code that TCC can right now, and probably ever
So if you're after just being able to replace gcc with a fast
compiler, TCC can broaden its support of C language up to the point
that it will compile most of C codes you throw at it...

However, it's just not an achievable goal right now to expect TCC
outperform GCC in code generation quality. It's all a matter of
manpower and experience.


In fact, it depends on what you mean by "drop in replacement". Of course, gcc generated code runs much faster. But as tcc generates code much faster, it may be very comfortable for everyday work to use it. While debuging everyday code, compilation time may be more critical than execution speed. For this to be practical, you need tcc to be a "drop in replacement", which in this context mainly means: - support the same command line options (no need to rewrite all Makefiles), even if some (optimisations for example) are simply ignored
- support the same syntax (which here means gcc extensions)

Compiling the Linux kernel in few seconds is quite great, changing all Makefiles to do it would (is?) be unsatisfactory.

Philippe Ribet

                        The README file said
             "Requires Windows 95, NT 4.0, or better."
                   So... I installed it on Linux!

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]