Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.glorb.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.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: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 05:40:55 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 56 Sender: news@iecc.com Approved: comp.compilers@iecc.com Message-ID: <16-09-034@comp.compilers> References: <16-09-001@comp.compilers> <16-09-033@comp.compilers> Injection-Info: miucha.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="19064"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Keywords: C Posted-Date: 27 Sep 2016 14:36:33 EDT X-submission-address: compilers@iecc.com X-moderator-address: compilers-request@iecc.com X-FAQ-and-archives: http://compilers.iecc.com X-Received-Bytes: 3037 X-Received-Body-CRC: 3534815734 Xref: csiph.com comp.compilers:1773 Hi. Thanks for your note. In article <16-09-033@comp.compilers>, wrote: >Hi, > >On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 2:02:33 PM UTC-5, Aharon Robbins wrote: >> >> Can I get recommendations for other (free) C compilers besides >> GCC and CLANG? >> >> In short, I'm looking for a faster compiler that actually works. > >I'm not sure what miracle advice you expected to get from here. I develop locally. My system is Ubuntu 16.04 with gcc 5.4 on a Skylake Core i5. /proc/cpuinfo claims 4 CPUs, so there are likely two hyperthreaded physical cores and there's plenty of RAM. The machine is quite fast, even though it's using a conventional disk. I often have to go through this cycle: make distclean ./bootstrap.sh # set modification times on some files ./configure && make && make check For example, when merging into the (too-many) different branches and encountering a conflict. The time difference between using tcc on the one hannd and GCC + make -j on the other is quite noticeable; tcc + make -j is even faster. Doing many builds an hour can happen, and a faster compiler saves me time. tcc also makes a VERY noticeable difference in the time it takes to run configure. When I posted, tcc wasn't an option since it didn't check for duplicate case labels, and PCC had stopped working for me. So I was seeking an additional, fast compiler. Dorking with the Makefile to only use -O on certain files isn't really an option; autotools sets things up to compile everything the same way and for the shipped tarball that is the right option. Similarly, I don't really wish to switch off the autotools; I've too much time and experience invested in them. They work, crufty as they are, and I have not had to invest any real time in keeping things up to date with respect to them. Since I originally posted, someone suggested that I just fix tcc on my own. I was able to do this with less than 2 hours work so now I'm back to being fat, dumb and happy. :-) Thanks, Arnold -- Aharon (Arnold) Robbins arnold AT skeeve DOT com