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: rockbrentwood@gmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Subject: Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux?
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2016 17:00:18 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: Compilers Central
Lines: 18
Sender: news@iecc.com
Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com
Message-ID: <16-09-014@comp.compilers>
References: <16-09-001@comp.compilers>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: miucha.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="88724"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com"
Keywords: C
Posted-Date: 08 Sep 2016 11:13:13 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:1753

On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 2:02:33 PM UTC-5, Aharon Robbins wrote:
> LCC seems to be 32 bit only and requires very manual configuration.

LCC-WIN 32 and apparently 64 by Jacob Navia appeared to have spruced
up LCC with elements drawn from Watcom to make it a bona fide Windows
C compiler; rather than one that piggybacks on another compiler's
library or the system library. It accepts a bit more than C; and Navia
has been trying to push it into a form of C sufficiently enhanced as
to make C++ unnecessary; while still firmly rooted in that which makes
C distinctively C. The one way you can tell however that it is not in
an active life cycle is that a large examples and demo archive that
has been separately posted for it by others has not undergone any
substantial change in almost a decade. LCC and LCC-WIN's main drawback
is that they are NOT doing the types of analyses that a good compiler
ought to be doing but appear to be more akin to byte-code compilers.
You can see it by the run times compared to GCC on Linux on the same
CPU.