Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!nerds-end From: Kaz Kylheku <221-501-9011@kylheku.com> Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 02:18:04 +0000 (UTC) Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Lines: 37 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <16-09-010@comp.compilers> References: <16-09-001@comp.compilers> <16-09-007@comp.compilers> Injection-Info: miucha.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="10055"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: C, performance Posted-Date: 06 Sep 2016 14:50:25 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:1749 On 2016-09-06, alexfrunews@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 12:02:33 PM UTC-7, Aharon Robbins wrote: >> 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. > > What is preventing you from doing most of development using, say, that > same TinyCC and then, when you think you're done with the round of > changes (bugfixes, improvements, new features) recompiling the coded > with gcc or clang and rerunning the tests to make sure there are no > issues (warnings, real bugs) missed because of the limitations of the > fast compiler? Given the nature of C, I think, it's always beneficial > to try your code with different compilers (and on different platforms) > to uncover portability and other problems. If TinyCC is lacking basic ISO-C-required diagnostics, it means you basically cannot make a single git commit without running the code through another compiler. Or you have to to hoard up a bunch of commits, then validate with the other compiler, then interactively rebase them to fix all the things that TinyCC didn't catch, and then publish the commits. Can you say, PITA? You need a compiler with great diagnostics for development. (More than just the ISO C required ones, but those would be nice, for starters).