Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.compilers > #1740 > unrolled thread
| Started by | arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-02 03:01 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-09-30 10:13 +0000 |
| Articles | 3 on this page of 43 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.compilers
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
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 02:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <16-09-039@comp.compilers> |
| In reply to | #1775 |
In article <16-09-036@comp.compilers>, George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> wrote: >The i5 has 4 non-HT cores. Works for me. :-) >If you really have plenty of RAM, why not create a ramdisk? Or put >in an SSD for the tmp filesystem? I spent enough $$ for the laptop and it's fast enough in general. I don't want to buy an SSD or move my work directory off the hard disk in case of power failures or whatever. >>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. :-) > >As long as you don't expect the same level of optimization. TCC is >nice for quick development turn-around, but it doesn't produce the >fastest code. I am exactly interestsed in "quick development turn-around". :-) Thanks, Arnold -- Aharon (Arnold) Robbins arnold AT skeeve DOT com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | arnold@skeeve.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 05:30 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <16-09-041@comp.compilers> |
| In reply to | #1773 |
> The whole point of "make" is to avoid recompiling things that > do not need to be recompiled. By repeatedly doing "make distclean" > you are circumventing this system. > > Find out why make is not compiling everything that it needs to. I am purposely cleaning up the directory so that builds occur from scratch as I *** switch between branches *** in the git repo. Especially on the 'stable' and 'master' branches I have to be sure that anyone checking out those branches will have things work for them. I am thinking this discussion has gotten out of hand and I apologize for it. All I'm looking for is a fast compiler for development since I on purpose do a lot of configure + make from scratch. I don't care about code quality; just that 'make check' passes. Since posting, I have repaired tcc to the point where I can use it, so I'm happy. The PCC issue remains to be resolved; gawk's code changed (the dfa module from grep) and PCC stopped working. I will eventually go to the trouble of isolating the problem but it's probably a few hours' work and that's time I don't have right now. Thanks to everyone for their replies. Arnold
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 10:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <16-09-045@comp.compilers> |
| In reply to | #1780 |
In article <16-09-041@comp.compilers>, <arnold@skeeve.com> wrote: >I am thinking this discussion has gotten out of hand and I apologize >for it. All I'm looking for is a fast compiler for development >since I on purpose do a lot of configure + make from scratch. >I don't care about code quality; just that 'make check' passes. Just to round off, here are some concrete timings: configure with GCC real 0m9.203s user 0m3.752s sys 0m0.972s make - serial - GCC real 0m17.806s user 0m15.984s sys 0m0.528s make -j with GCC real 0m8.148s user 0m27.996s sys 0m0.808s configure with tcc real 0m5.915s user 0m0.832s sys 0m0.424s serial make with tcc real 0m2.580s user 0m1.540s sys 0m0.180s make -j with tcc real 0m1.107s user 0m2.544s sys 0m0.236s Very real compile time differences for clean builds. GCC from scratch is 18 seconds, tcc from scratch is around 7. Over 200% difference! Thanks again to everyone. Arnold -- Aharon (Arnold) Robbins arnold AT skeeve DOT com
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | comp.compilers
csiph-web