On Dec 9, 2014 2:31 AM, "Daniel Glöckner" <daniel...@gmx.net> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 01:19:55AM -0500, stephen Turner wrote: > > I have found tcc and wondered how viable it is as a alternative to gcc and > > clang/llvm for my uses. > > What is your motivation to switch away from gcc/clang? > The benefits of TinyCC are smaller and faster compiler but it is > by far less tested and only does minor optimizations. >
Currently im using little to no optimizations anyways and think I prefer it that way. > > Does it use makefiles? > > It's a compiler, not a development environment. > Or are you asking if the compiler is built using makefiles? > Makefiles as in the buildscripts? Prepacked with most programs now. The ones which I believe help give that make make install functionality. I know to handle make files the gnu program make is needed. Unless tcc can replace make as well? > > can it be a simple drop in replacement for GCC (atleast for c if not c++ > > too) > > For simple code, yes. > You say simple code like it could be a bad thing. Does c have complex code as well? If it does then its safe to assume it would fail compiling some gnu tools even if they are purely c correct? > > From what i have read so far its only a c compiler? Or is it being built > > out to support c++ as well? > > IIRC there have been some attempts at adding various aspects of > C++ into TinyCC, but none of them have been merged back into the > main repository. There is a recent discussion to use the CFront > C++ to C translator with TinyCC. > > Best regards, > > Daniel > > _______________________________________________ > Tinycc-devel mailing list > Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
_______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
