GCC 4.7.x can be bootstraped with a basic C compiler/runtime.
>From GCC 4.8, you must have c++98 compiler/runtime, which is of several order
of magnitude more costly from a technical point of view.
For me, that reason is enough to start looking at other compilers
(written/bootstrapable in C) and/
Greetings.
Calvin Morrison wrote:
> I've used -O3 for a long time in several projects that are heavily
> tuned and not noticed any issues. I think there is a large stigma
> around -O3 but if you just take a few minutes to read about -O3 you'll
> learn quickly what is safe to use and what could cau
On 24 November 2014 at 15:46, Calvin Morrison wrote:
> On 24 November 2014 at 15:44, koneu wrote:
>> Greetings.
>>
>> Markus Wichmann wrote:
>>> compiling with -O3 will result in some broken binaries. Somewhere. Why?
>>
>> Because -O3 is very aggressive and should NOT be used. Especially not
>> w
On 24 November 2014 at 15:44, koneu wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> Markus Wichmann wrote:
>> compiling with -O3 will result in some broken binaries. Somewhere. Why?
>
> Because -O3 is very aggressive and should NOT be used. Especially not
> when compiling/bootstrapping a system. In most cases it makes th
Greetings.
Markus Wichmann wrote:
> compiling with -O3 will result in some broken binaries. Somewhere. Why?
Because -O3 is very aggressive and should NOT be used. Especially not
when compiling/bootstrapping a system. In most cases it makes things
buggier and bigger, in some cases even slower. Use
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 21:05:29 +0100
Markus Wichmann wrote:
> But no, so I'll have to put in debug outputs, which of course changes
> the program, and kills the timing, and if I'm debugging a race condition
> (in the sucky code I have to write at work) that's exactly what I don't
> need. Oh, and I'
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:01:13AM +0100, koneu wrote:
> On November 24, 2014 6:35:51 AM CET, Markus Wichmann wrote:
> >that this asumption removes most overflow checking code.
>
> This behaviour is a pro, not a con, of GCC. If you rely on undefined
> behaviour to
> check for ... well ... undefi
On 24 November 2014 at 11:42, v4hn wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:20:44PM +, Henrique Lengler wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > What is the situation of GCC, is it bloated?
>
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:35:52PM +, doa379 wrote:
> > There's an incredible amount of spam and OT on this list isn'
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:20:44PM +, Henrique Lengler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What is the situation of GCC, is it bloated?
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 10:35:52PM +, doa379 wrote:
> There's an incredible amount of spam and OT on this list isn't there!
Indeed.
v4hn
pgpxKlkM6DhL4.pgp
Description:
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 02:03:04PM +0100, Joerg Jung wrote:
> I can add subc[1] and cc500[2] to the
> list of interesting projects.
>
> [1] http://www.t3x.org/subc/
> [2] http://homepage.ntlworld.com/edmund.grimley-evans/cc500/
+1 for subc. His book is excellent as well.
> Am 24.11.2014 um 09:44 schrieb Anthony J. Bentley :
>
> "Dmitrij D. Czarkoff" writes:
>> I believe it is not actively developed for several years, and it seems
>> to have lost its momentum.
>
> It's certainly not active, but neither is it completely dead. Actually,
> they just branched a new
On November 24, 2014 6:35:51 AM CET, Markus Wichmann wrote:
>that this asumption removes most overflow checking code.
This behaviour is a pro, not a con, of GCC. If you rely on undefined behaviour
to
check for ... well ... undefined behaviour there is a compiler flag to enable
it.
>something,
"Dmitrij D. Czarkoff" writes:
> I believe it is not actively developed for several years, and it seems
> to have lost its momentum.
It's certainly not active, but neither is it completely dead. Actually,
they just branched a new release beta.
http://marc.info/?l=pcc-list&m=141612991809812&w=2
An
Anselm R Garbe said:
> I see a lot of opportunity in a decent C-only compiler. Not sure if
> OpenBSD achieved anything wrt its pcc porting efforts that Uriel once
> pushed for.
It was not pcc effort, and it is not even in OpenBSD source tree any
more. The project's site¹ says it is mostly complet
On 24 November 2014 at 06:35, Markus Wichmann wrote:
> Well, there's always clang. It's completely written in C++, but is way
> better organized than GCC and it is contained entirely in a lib, so it
> can be easily integrated into IDEs and other programs. If you need a C
> parser, have a look at l
On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 10:20:44PM +, Henrique Lengler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What is the situation of GCC, is it bloated?
Holy shit, yes! Ever tried to compile it?
And in the end, GCC has a lot of optimizers that make pedantic
asumptions about the code they compile. For instance, if i is of signe
On 23/11/2014, Henrique Lengler wrote:
> So what do you think, GCC is ok?
No.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00193.html
If I want to see politics trump technics, I watch CPAC.
tcc is actively maintained. i dont see a reason for forking it, see
tinycc-devel mailing at nongnu.org
this is the repo: http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git
On 11/23/2014 11:20 PM, Henrique Lengler wrote:
Hi,
What is the situation of GCC, is it bloated?
I'm asking because I don't find too much on
On 23 November 2014 at 17:20, Henrique Lengler
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> What is the situation of GCC, is it bloated?
> I'm asking because I don't find too much on suckless site about it
> I don't have experience in any other compiler.
>
> I also found someday TCC (Tiny C compiler - bellard.org/tcc/)
> A
Hi,
What is the situation of GCC, is it bloated?
I'm asking because I don't find too much on suckless site about it
I don't have experience in any other compiler.
I also found someday TCC (Tiny C compiler - bellard.org/tcc/)
And it looks cool.
The site shows the speed of it:
CompilerTi
20 matches
Mail list logo
