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: arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) Newsgroups: comp.compilers Subject: Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2016 18:14:22 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 16 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <16-09-032@comp.compilers> References: <16-09-001@comp.compilers> <16-09-026@comp.compilers> <16-09-028@comp.compilers> <16-09-030@comp.compilers> Injection-Info: miucha.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="31927"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: C, performance, comment Posted-Date: 14 Sep 2016 21:31:40 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:1771 >BartC wrote: >>Do you use TCC to compile itself, or something like gcc? >> >>I'm just interested in whether it partly relies on gcc to get its speed! Aharon Robbins wrote: >The default configure + make compiles tcc with gcc. I should point out that a large part of tcc's speed comes from the fact that it generates object code directly, instead of going through the assembler. It might even have its own internal 'ld', I'm not sure. -- Aharon (Arnold) Robbins arnold AT skeeve DOT com [Oh, like WATFOR and the original Dartmough BASIC. -John]