[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: gcc 2.95 vs 3.21 performance
On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote:

| In article <>,
| Jeff Muizelaar <> wrote:
| >
| >There is also 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.
| >Though, I am not really sure of the quality of code generated or of how
| >mature it is.
| tcc is interesting. The code generation is pretty simplistic (read:
| trivially horrible for most things), but it sure is fast and small. And
| judging by the changelog, Fabrice is trying to compile the kernel with
| it.
| For a lot of problems, small-and-fast is good. Hell, some of the things
| I'd personally find interesting don't have any code generation part at
| all (static analysis of annotated source-code - stanford checker on the
| cheap).
Yep, that's exactly why I'm interested...

| And development doesn't always need good code generation (right
| now some people use "gcc -O0" for that, because anything else hurts too
| much. Now, the code from tcc will probably look more like "-O-1", but
| at least you can test out things _quickly_).


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:32    [W:0.081 / U:1.452 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site