GCC 4.7.x can be bootstraped with a basic C compiler/runtime.
From GCC 4.8, you must have c++98 compiler/runtime, which is of several order
of magnitude more costly from a technical point of view.
For me, that reason is enough to start looking at other compilers
(written/bootstrapable in C)
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff writes:
I believe it is not actively developed for several years, and it seems
to have lost its momentum.
It's certainly not active, but neither is it completely dead. Actually,
they just branched a new release beta.
http://marc.info/?l=pcc-listm=141612991809812w=2
Another
On November 24, 2014 6:35:51 AM CET, Markus Wichmann nullp...@gmx.net wrote:
that this asumption removes most overflow checking code.
This behaviour is a pro, not a con, of GCC. If you rely on undefined behaviour
to
check for ... well ... undefined behaviour there is a compiler flag to enable
Am 24.11.2014 um 09:44 schrieb Anthony J. Bentley anth...@cathet.us:
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff writes:
I believe it is not actively developed for several years, and it seems
to have lost its momentum.
It's certainly not active, but neither is it completely dead. Actually,
they just branched
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:03:04PM +0100, Joerg Jung wrote:
I can add subc[1] and cc500[2] to the
list of interesting projects.
[1] http://www.t3x.org/subc/
[2] http://homepage.ntlworld.com/edmund.grimley-evans/cc500/
+1 for subc. His book is excellent as well.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:20:44PM +, Henrique Lengler wrote:
Hi,
What is the situation of GCC, is it bloated?
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:35:52PM +, doa379 wrote:
There's an incredible amount of spam and OT on this list isn't there!
Indeed.
v4hn
pgpxKlkM6DhL4.pgp
Description:
On 24 November 2014 at 11:42, v4hn m...@v4hn.de wrote:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:20:44PM +, Henrique Lengler wrote:
Hi,
What is the situation of GCC, is it bloated?
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:35:52PM +, doa379 wrote:
There's an incredible amount of spam and OT on this list
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:01:13AM +0100, koneu wrote:
On November 24, 2014 6:35:51 AM CET, Markus Wichmann nullp...@gmx.net wrote:
that this asumption removes most overflow checking code.
This behaviour is a pro, not a con, of GCC. If you rely on undefined
behaviour to
check for ... well
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:05:29 +0100
Markus Wichmann nullp...@gmx.net wrote:
But no, so I'll have to put in debug outputs, which of course changes
the program, and kills the timing, and if I'm debugging a race condition
(in the sucky code I have to write at work) that's exactly what I don't
Greetings.
Markus Wichmann wrote:
compiling with -O3 will result in some broken binaries. Somewhere. Why?
Because -O3 is very aggressive and should NOT be used. Especially not
when compiling/bootstrapping a system. In most cases it makes things
buggier and bigger, in some cases even slower. Use
On 24 November 2014 at 15:44, koneu kone...@googlemail.com wrote:
Greetings.
Markus Wichmann wrote:
compiling with -O3 will result in some broken binaries. Somewhere. Why?
Because -O3 is very aggressive and should NOT be used. Especially not
when compiling/bootstrapping a system. In most
On 24 November 2014 at 15:46, Calvin Morrison mutanttur...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 November 2014 at 15:44, koneu kone...@googlemail.com wrote:
Greetings.
Markus Wichmann wrote:
compiling with -O3 will result in some broken binaries. Somewhere. Why?
Because -O3 is very aggressive and should
Greetings.
Calvin Morrison wrote:
I've used -O3 for a long time in several projects that are heavily
tuned and not noticed any issues. I think there is a large stigma
around -O3 but if you just take a few minutes to read about -O3 you'll
learn quickly what is safe to use and what could cause
Hi,
What is the situation of GCC, is it bloated?
I'm asking because I don't find too much on suckless site about it
I don't have experience in any other compiler.
I also found someday TCC (Tiny C compiler - bellard.org/tcc/)
And it looks cool.
The site shows the speed of it:
Compiler
On 23 November 2014 at 17:20, Henrique Lengler
henriquel...@openmailbox.org wrote:
Hi,
What is the situation of GCC, is it bloated?
I'm asking because I don't find too much on suckless site about it
I don't have experience in any other compiler.
I also found someday TCC (Tiny C compiler -
tcc is actively maintained. i dont see a reason for forking it, see
tinycc-devel mailing at nongnu.org
this is the repo: http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git
On 11/23/2014 11:20 PM, Henrique Lengler wrote:
Hi,
What is the situation of GCC, is it bloated?
I'm asking because I don't find too much
On 23/11/2014, Henrique Lengler henriquel...@openmailbox.org wrote:
So what do you think, GCC is ok?
No.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00193.html
If I want to see politics trump technics, I watch CPAC.
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:20:44PM +, Henrique Lengler wrote:
Hi,
What is the situation of GCC, is it bloated?
Holy shit, yes! Ever tried to compile it?
And in the end, GCC has a lot of optimizers that make pedantic
asumptions about the code they compile. For instance, if i is of signed
On 24 November 2014 at 06:35, Markus Wichmann nullp...@gmx.net wrote:
Well, there's always clang. It's completely written in C++, but is way
better organized than GCC and it is contained entirely in a lib, so it
can be easily integrated into IDEs and other programs. If you need a C
parser,
Anselm R Garbe said:
I see a lot of opportunity in a decent C-only compiler. Not sure if
OpenBSD achieved anything wrt its pcc porting efforts that Uriel once
pushed for.
It was not pcc effort, and it is not even in OpenBSD source tree any
more. The project's site¹ says it is mostly complete
20 matches
Mail list logo
