Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #147713
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: One works, the other doesn't? |
| Date | 2019-11-07 15:58 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <qq1bed$109$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (12 earlier) <5BIwF.44883$vV6.32008@fx17.am4> <qpvn2u$qml$1@dont-email.me> <ddKwF.118673$ZO5.23938@fx26.am4> <qq0np1$cgc$1@dont-email.me> <izTwF.228690$LT2.137023@fx21.am4> |
On 07/11/2019 12:51, Bart wrote: > On 07/11/2019 09:22, David Brown wrote: >> On 07/11/2019 02:13, Bart wrote: > >>> So why was it made fast? >> >> It doesn't do much (in comparison to bigger compilers), so it can be >> small and fast. In particular, as far as I know it doesn't do any kind >> of inter-procedural analysis, which is something that takes a lot of >> time and resources in a compiler but is very important for both >> optimisation and static analysis. It does not handle multiple >> languages, multiple targets and multiple devices within a family - so it >> does not need the layers of abstraction in between stages. > > So if using TCC to develop C programs for x86, x64, ARM and ARM64, it's > no good because it doesn't support 996 other processors, and it isn't > part of a product chain that can also compile C++, Ada and Fortran? I said the limited features are one of the reasons tcc can be small and fast. > > It sounds to me like, if that is how you can streamline a compiler, then > what's the problem? > >> As I have said before, I think it is impressive how much TCC can do in >> such a small code space and run time. > > (For 'impressive', look at LuaJIT, which is a 225KB executable that > appears to be a complete Lua implementation with a tracing JIT compiler. > C source is a nightmare though...) > >> But it is not the tool to use for >> development. > > Yes you keep saying that. But not everyone is you with your very > exacting requirements. > >>> TCC compiles so fast that even for big projects Makefiles may not be >>> necessary. >> >> That only applies if you don't know what Makefiles are for, and how >> project management works. Or if you only write "hello, world" programs. > > My projects aren't that big, but they're a long way from being hello, > world programs. Yet they don't need makefiles. The biggest one is built > like this: > > C:\qcc>mm qq > Compiling qq.m to qq.exe > > Which processes 56 files totalling 56,000 lines. 'mm.exe' is a bare > compiler. While, getting back to C, I can build Seed7 like this: > > C:\seed79\src>bcc @s7 > .... > > where s7 is simply a list of the modules that are needed. This will also > work with gcc and lcc (depending on whether compiler-specific options > are inside that @ file). > > Makefiles are not the only fruit. We are talking about C, not your private language. Non-negligible projects need some kind of build process. Makefiles are one way to express these - there are other ways. The point is that "the compiler is so fast you don't need a Makefile" is a complete misunderstanding on the purpose of Makefiles - they are not just about the efficiency of incremental builds. If I want fast compilation for incremental builds, I can use ccache - it will tear through C files in a fraction of the time tcc takes, when re-compiling the same code (and the same options). I still need a Makefile, because build procedures are important. > > Some like to streamline and simplify, your propaganda which dismisses > such simplifications and promotes ever more complex and bigger tools > doesn't help that. > >>> TCC can also be used to make C scripts, i.e. pieces of C source that you >>> run as a Perl or Python script. Compilation is so fast that your script >>> will be as fast as if it was an executable. >> >> Pointless. It is a fine gimmick. > > It is a great gimmick. You want to encourage people to use C? No, I don't. I am happy that people use C where C is appropriate, but I think both programmers and their programs would be better off if C was used a lot less and by a lot fewer people. It is regularly used in cases where it is not the best language for the task, and regularly used by people who don't really understand it. C is an excellent language for some tasks, and it is a useful language for a lot of programmers to know - but it is not a language for beginners, and it is not a language to use unless it really is the right choice. > Then make > it as effortless as running a script. With tcc's -run option, I couldn't > find out how to pass parameters to the compiled program, but I can do > the same thing in mine: > > First, create a suitable one-file C program to make for a simple > example, like a C compiler: > > C:\cx>mc -c cc > Compiling cc.m to cc.c > > Now, compile and then run that C compiler, but as a bonus, tell it to > also run the program that it will compile: > > C:\cx>bcc cc -run : hello -run > Compiling cc.c to cc.exe > Compiling hello.c to hello.exe > Hello World! > > You have to admit this is impressive, and something rather difficult > with gcc. This took 0.33 seconds (tcc would be around 0.2 seconds), on a > machine that is 1/4 the speed of Ian Collins' (one he thinks is not fast). > Yes, it is impressive. I used to be able to juggle 5 balls - that's impressive too. Neither is a useful trick for programming work. > Imagine that every time you wanted to run gcc, you had to build gcc from > scratch first. > Imagine if you had to rebuild your car's engine every time you filled up with petrol. What is your point here, other than giving our imaginations a little exercise? > >>> With libtcc, you can use TCC as a backend for dynamic code generation." >> >> That is a feature that might have some uses. > > Well I use tcc as a backend (for compiling my language on Linux via an > intermediate C target), but I just use tcc itself, not libtcc, ie. is > not integrated, but it runs as if integrated. > > The default compiler that is invoked is gcc, but only because that is > always present, while tcc is optional. I will change it I think so that > it will check for tcc and run that in preference. > > tcc is a good match for my compiler, because they are both very fast. If > using gcc, it's like hitting a brick wall as soon as it starts gcc, even > using -O0. Eg (mu.ma is a 25Kloc compiler in my language): The requirements for a compiler handling generated code are very different from what you want from a compiler as a development tool.
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
One works, the other doesn't? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-03 17:39 -0500
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-04 00:20 +0000
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-11-04 06:53 +0000
Re: One works, the other doesn't? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-11-04 09:45 -0500
Re: One works, the other doesn't? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-05 10:34 -0500
Re: One works, the other doesn't? mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2019-11-05 07:45 -0800
Re: One works, the other doesn't? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-05 10:53 -0500
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-11-05 08:04 -0800
Re: One works, the other doesn't? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-05 11:29 -0500
Re: One works, the other doesn't? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-05 23:24 +0100
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-05 23:06 +0000
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-11-06 12:31 +1300
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-05 23:43 +0000
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-11-06 12:54 +1300
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-06 01:35 +0000
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-11-06 15:16 +1300
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-06 11:11 +0000
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-11-06 01:59 -0800
Re: One works, the other doesn't? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-06 11:35 +0100
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-11-06 08:57 -0800
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-11-07 07:24 +1300
Re: One works, the other doesn't? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-06 22:59 +0100
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-11-06 14:37 -0800
Re: One works, the other doesn't? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-07 00:58 +0100
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-11-07 02:08 -0800
Re: One works, the other doesn't? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-07 15:43 +0100
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2019-11-07 16:15 -0600
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-11-10 20:01 +0000
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-11-11 15:26 +1300
Re: One works, the other doesn't? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-11 12:37 +0100
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-11-07 07:21 +1300
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-11-06 10:39 -0800
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-11-07 07:47 +1300
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-11-07 08:14 +1300
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-11-06 12:30 -0800
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-11-08 21:04 -0800
Re: One works, the other doesn't? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-09 01:37 -0800
Re: One works, the other doesn't? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-09 01:38 -0800
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-11-10 08:32 +1300
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-11-28 16:09 -0800
Re: One works, the other doesn't? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-29 11:33 +0100
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2019-11-30 14:20 -0800
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-12-01 12:15 +1300
Re: One works, the other doesn't? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-06 10:07 +0100
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-06 10:58 +0000
Re: One works, the other doesn't? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-07 10:05 +0100
Re: One works, the other doesn't? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-06 09:52 +0100
Re: One works, the other doesn't? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-06 00:56 -0800
Re: One works, the other doesn't? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2019-11-06 01:00 -0800
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-06 11:32 +0000
Re: One works, the other doesn't? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-06 23:11 +0100
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-06 23:22 +0000
Re: One works, the other doesn't? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-07 01:04 +0100
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-07 01:13 +0000
Re: One works, the other doesn't? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-07 10:22 +0100
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-07 11:51 +0000
Re: One works, the other doesn't? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-07 15:58 +0100
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-07 16:34 +0000
Re: One works, the other doesn't? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-07 12:40 -0500
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-07 17:57 +0000
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-11-07 21:14 -0800
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-08 09:45 +0000
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-11-08 09:56 -0800
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-08 19:47 +0000
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-11-09 09:14 +1300
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-11-08 19:10 -0800
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-09 12:24 +0000
Like an old married couple... (Was: One works, the other doesn't?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-11-08 20:25 +0000
Re: One works, the other doesn't? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-07 19:58 +0100
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-07 19:31 +0000
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-11-08 08:56 +1300
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-07 20:06 +0000
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-11-08 09:21 +1300
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-07 21:20 +0000
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-11-08 10:28 +1300
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-11-07 22:35 +0000
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2019-11-09 09:22 +1300
Re: One works, the other doesn't? jadill33@gmail.com - 2019-11-07 08:37 -0800
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-11-07 08:52 -0800
Re: One works, the other doesn't? jadill33@gmail.com - 2019-11-07 09:52 -0800
Re: One works, the other doesn't? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-07 20:04 +0100
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-11-08 19:50 -0800
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-05 18:05 +0100
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2019-11-05 09:28 -0800
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-05 19:02 +0100
Re: One works, the other doesn't? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-11-05 23:21 +0100
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-06 18:36 +0100
Re: One works, the other doesn't? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-11-05 12:51 -0500
Re: One works, the other doesn't? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-05 18:35 -0500
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@delq.com> - 2019-11-05 17:53 -0800
Re: One works, the other doesn't? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-11-06 09:33 -0500
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@delq.com> - 2019-11-05 13:36 -0800
Re: One works, the other doesn't? jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2019-11-07 10:17 +0100
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-11-07 12:19 +0000
Re: One works, the other doesn't? jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2019-11-07 18:59 +0100
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-11-08 00:02 +0000
Re: One works, the other doesn't? jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2019-11-20 10:54 +0100
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-11-20 11:14 +0000
Re: One works, the other doesn't? jak <nospam@please.ty> - 2019-11-20 13:22 +0100
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-11-28 15:54 -0800
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-11-20 08:42 -0800
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2019-11-21 18:56 +0100
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2019-11-22 01:07 +0000
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2019-11-22 15:27 +0100
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-11-28 15:47 -0800
Re: One works, the other doesn't? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-07 18:41 -0500
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-05 17:39 +0100
Re: One works, the other doesn't? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-05 11:47 -0500
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-11-05 17:54 +0100
Re: One works, the other doesn't? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2019-11-05 09:00 -0800
Re: One works, the other doesn't? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-11-08 21:02 -0800
Re: One works, the other doesn't? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2019-11-09 02:09 -0500
csiph-web