On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 3:08 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > ---- > > I wonder if the internals of tinycc can easily supports basic > optimization passes. The idea is not to compete with gcc and its > hundred of passes, but my guess is that very few optimization > passes would be required to give a significant performance boost > to generated code. Just need to select the "right" ones...
In my opinion, tinycc can remain without optimizations because it is not one of the compiler design goals. However there is one optimization that's more like a feature these days: dead code elimination. There are quite a few programs that completely rely on that and when compiled with tcc plainly fail with a 'undefined symbol' error for functions that are actually unused. It would be really nice to have some compiler switch (if not integrated) that enable this functionality. Vittorio _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
