Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 09 Feb 2003 21:14:20 -0500 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: gcc 2.95 vs 3.21 performance |
| |
Neil Booth wrote: > Jeff Muizelaar wrote:- > > >>There is also tcc (http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/tcc/) >>It claims to support gcc-like inline assembler, appears to be much >>smaller and faster than gcc. Plus it is GPL so the liscense isn't a >>problem either. > > > It doesn't expand macros correctly, however, and accepts an enormous > range of invalid code without a single diagnostic. I'm pretty sure > it's arithmetic rules are incorrect, too. It's certainly nowhere > near C89 compliance.
100% agreed.
However, for our purposes, TinyCC is only missing two pieces needed for successfully building a bootable kernel:
* __builtin_constant_p * function inlining
Given the existing TinyCC source base, function inlining is a big step (since tcc doesn't do AST-like things currently), so don't expect that very soon. TinyCC is a fun little project to watch and play around with, though, and can compile most major open source projects, as well as itself.
Jeff
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |