Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.compilers > #1791
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.compilers |
| Subject | Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? |
| Date | 2016-10-01 22:17 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <16-10-004@comp.compilers> (permalink) |
| References | (4 earlier) <16-09-037@comp.compilers> <16-09-042@comp.compilers> <16-09-044@comp.compilers> <16-09-047@comp.compilers> <16-10-001@comp.compilers> |
On 30/09/2016 19:15, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote: > BartC schrieb: >> I seem to remember some comment in this group that tokenising accounts >> for a big chunk of a compiler's runtime (50% or something). > > This seems to be a reasonable figure for C, including all those nasty > tasks which have to be done before a token can be passed on to the parser. > >> While it is true that doing a full compile will take longer than just >> raw tokenising, should that factor be of the order of 1000 times longer, >> or three magnitudes? > > Find out yourself. I already know the answer. It /doesn't/ take that much longer. Replace the grammar of your tokenizer by the C > grammar, and test again. I'd wonder if it would not reach the speed of > your tokenizer. Then add the preprocessor with file inclusion, macro > definition, recognition and expansion, conditional compilation, and test > again. Then add Ansi and Unicode string literals and symbol tables, and > test again. I don't need to do this work because it's already been done by Tiny C. Using a monolithic, working test program of 22K lines (25K lines including standard headers for tcc; 27K using gcc) Tiny C compiled it in no more than 0.07 seconds (at least 360K lps). gcc took from 2.2 seconds (unoptimised), to over 8 seconds (optimised). 3-12K lps. (Probably it strained the global optimiser having a large single module as usually the difference between -O0/-O3 is smaller .) Tiny C must be parsing the same C grammar and expanding the same macros as gcc. So whatever it takes to do that, can presumably be done at some speed faster than 350Klps.
Back to comp.compilers | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) - 2016-09-02 03:01 +0000
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2016-09-05 00:20 +0200
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? alexfrunews@gmail.com - 2016-09-05 17:26 -0700
Re: diagnosing C errors, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-09 12:31 +0100
Re: diagnosing C errors, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Kaz Kylheku <221-501-9011@kylheku.com> - 2016-09-09 16:06 +0000
Re: diagnosing C errors, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2016-09-10 00:38 +0200
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Nemo <nemo@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-04 18:32 -0400
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Kaz Kylheku <221-501-9011@kylheku.com> - 2016-09-04 23:48 +0000
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-05 13:19 +0100
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Kaz Kylheku <221-501-9011@kylheku.com> - 2016-09-06 02:15 +0000
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-06 21:35 +0100
Re: dead code or otherwise, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-09-08 11:58 -0400
Re: dead code or otherwise, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Kaz Kylheku <221-501-9011@kylheku.com> - 2016-09-08 22:54 +0000
Re: dead code or otherwise, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-09-09 00:51 -0400
Re: dead code or otherwise, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Kaz Kylheku <221-501-9011@kylheku.com> - 2016-09-09 06:05 +0000
Re: dead code or otherwise, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-09-09 14:02 -0400
Re: dead code or otherwise, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Kaz Kylheku <221-501-9011@kylheku.com> - 2016-09-09 19:57 +0000
Re: duplicate cases, was Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2016-09-07 17:01 +0100
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> - 2016-09-05 20:06 +0200
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? alexfrunews@gmail.com - 2016-09-05 17:22 -0700
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Kaz Kylheku <221-501-9011@kylheku.com> - 2016-09-06 02:18 +0000
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? rockbrentwood@gmail.com - 2016-09-07 17:00 -0700
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) - 2016-09-12 18:42 +0000
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-12 22:37 +0100
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) - 2016-09-13 17:35 +0000
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) - 2016-09-14 18:14 +0000
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? rugxulo@gmail.com - 2016-09-26 15:29 -0700
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) - 2016-09-27 05:40 +0000
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? rugxulo@gmail.com - 2016-09-27 16:36 -0700
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-28 18:16 +0100
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-29 14:03 +0100
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-09-29 22:57 -0400
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2016-09-30 05:03 +0200
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-30 12:00 +0100
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? Hans-Peter Diettrich <DrDiettrich1@netscape.net> - 2016-09-30 20:15 +0200
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-01 22:17 +0100
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-30 12:28 +0100
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-17 22:49 +0100
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-09-28 21:24 -0400
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2016-09-28 01:01 -0400
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) - 2016-09-29 02:55 +0000
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com - 2016-09-29 05:30 -0600
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) - 2016-09-30 10:13 +0000
csiph-web