lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.119 / U:1.892 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site