On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 02:02:57AM +0800, bj wrote: >so TinyCC is small,quick,dirty, and a good translator? > >i didn't understand what you meant by these statements:
1) Fix your time 2) tcc has no noteworthy code optimizations. It's main purpose is it's size, not necessarily the quality (speed/size) of the generated code. 3) tcc is a C89 compiler, for the most part. Anyone who thinks he's able to compile e.g. the kernel or other SW that peruses certain C99 features is likely to be surprised. That said, even if the majority of C89 is supported currently, there are a couple of loose ends even with C89. > >Nobody wants to use GCC with -O0 instead of -O2, but this is what you get >from TinyCC As said, tcc doesn't optimize, i.e. it behaves roughly like -O0 > >When GCC is a good human translator, TinyCC is babelfish.altavista.com tcc generates suboptimal code, size wise as well as performance wise as it's main goal is it's _own_ size as opposed to _creating_ small obj. HTH, > >On Fri, 13 Oct 2006 05:36:44 +0800, Daniel Glöckner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: > >> >>Nobody wants to use GCC with -O0 instead of -O2, but this is what you get >>from TinyCC >>When GCC is a good human translator, TinyCC is babelfish.altavista.com > > > >-- >Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > > >_______________________________________________ >Tinycc-devel mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel > _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
