Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Keith Thompson Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Python recompile Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2025 15:46:58 -0800 Organization: None to speak of Lines: 72 Message-ID: <87jz904d59.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> References: <20250304092827.708@kylheku.com> <871pv861ht.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2025 00:47:10 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="94e6cc939317b57e1d31f0d2affb1815"; logging-data="3972248"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX183pv6P5te9dZZrpfTLam+9" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cancel-Lock: sha1:iRGg51C8TcTzRL7pn6k60tfsmes= sha1:c5FTCby9rvRYdcLfSVgTAVM9W/Q= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:390889 bart writes: > On 07/03/2025 20:15, Keith Thompson wrote: >> bart writes: >> [...] >>> I just (well, nearly 2 hours ago!) downloaded the sources for gcc. It >>> was 0.75GB in all, 142,000 files, 5,500 folders. There are 84,000 .c >>> files, and 4,600 .h files. >>> >>> It took something over 90 MINUTES to unzip, using a SSD. >> Whatever you downloaded, it wasn't (just) the sources for gcc. >> The latest release of gcc (14.2.0) has 58503 .c files and 4131 >> .h files, and the gcc project does not make it available as a >> .zip file. When you say "the sources for gcc", I presume you're >> referring to some software package that includes gcc. Why didn't >> you mention that? > > It was from here: > > https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc > > The ZIP file is the one you get on the '<> Code' pulldown menu. You > get that on every project, whether it targets Windows or not. > > I've no idea where the official gcc source code resides. Googling > 'github cpython' worked for that product; this was the first hit for > 'github gcc'. So you just assumed that's official. Someone else has already replied and told you where the official gcc source code resides. You assumed it's on GitHub. It isn't. Not everything is. The GNU project does its own hosting. Somebody apparently decided to set up a mirror on GitHub, but I wouldn't rely on it. And it might not be up to date with the official gcc git (not GitHub) repository (though it appears that it is). That zip file is the latest version on the "master" branch, *not* a release. It isn't necessarily stable. But if your goal in downloading and extracting it was to make a point yet again about how difficult it is for you, I suppose that doesn't matter. If you wanted the gcc sources for a given release, it would be better to download a .tar.gz or .tar.xz file from an official mirror, which you can find via gcc.gnu.org. GitHub's zip download feature just gives you a snapshot of the repo, *not* an official release. A build procedure that works with an official tarball might not work with a git snapshot, for reasons I won't go into here. [...] >> The gcc maintainers are not particularly interested in supporting >> Windows > > And yet gcc exists on Windows. Yes. > The big thing everybody lauds gcc for is the range of targets it > supports. But not supporting that obscure target called Win64-x64 is > fine! It's fine with me. If it's not fine with you, complaining about it here is unproductive and off topic. (And a "target" is the system for which gcc generates code, not necessarily the system on which gcc runs.) [...] -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */