Path: csiph.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: jacobnavia Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 00:20:04 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 60 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <16-09-002@comp.compilers> References: <16-09-001@comp.compilers> Reply-To: jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Info: miucha.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="64277"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: C, linux Posted-Date: 04 Sep 2016 18:56:53 EDT X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:1741 Le 02/09/2016 ` 05:01, Aharon Robbins a icrit : > Hi. > > Can I get recommendations for other (free) C compilers besides GCC and CLANG? > I've been using the revived PCC for gawk development since it's faster > than GCC, but recently it's developed a bug where it won't compile the > current (valid) code. > > LCC seems to be 32 bit only and requires very manual configuration. > > TinyCC is blindingly fast, and can compile gawk, but is broken in that > it won't diagnose duplicate case statements inside switch. The developers > don't consider this a problem. So I refuse to use it. > > In short, I'm looking for a faster compiler that actually works. > > Thanks, > > Arnold Hi Arnold lcc-win, a 64 bit version of lcc, runs under linux but I have never tried to make it a real compiler system since there are no customers. Nobody buys compilers in linux, so, either you use gcc or clang, or you just write your own. As you write above you want it "free". That is why I have never developed under linux, since I do not like to work for free. Why should I? I understand the developers of TinyCC. Why should they care? If you write duplicate switch cases its not their fault, its yours. It would take me several weeks of work to get lcc-win running. It is very fast. It produces much better code than the original lcc, and generates 64 bit code. That time would be just to get it running using gas (the gnu assembler) and the gnu linker. Other thing (also a derivative of lcc) that I have developed under linux is a JIT. It will compile a source file into a buffer, and after compiling it will jump into the generated code and execute it in the fly. I developed that because I had a customer that wanted a linux version. Why there are no other compilers besides gnu/clang? Because, as you said, everybody assumes that no compensation will be given to the guy/team that develops them. Then linux is stuck with a single compiler that is very slow. The intel compiler, the best compiler for the x86 environment runs under linux. But that costs more than 700 dollars if memory serves. You get what you pay for.