Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux?

jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr>
Mon, 5 Sep 2016 00:20:04 +0200

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com (2016-09-02)
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr (jacobnavia) (2016-09-05)
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? nemo@invalid.invalid (Nemo) (2016-09-04)
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? 221-501-9011@kylheku.com (Kaz Kylheku) (2016-09-04)
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? bc@freeuk.com (BartC) (2016-09-05)
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? fw@deneb.enyo.de (Florian Weimer) (2016-09-05)
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? alexfrunews@gmail.com (2016-09-05)
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? alexfrunews@gmail.com (2016-09-05)
[28 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2016 00:20:04 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
References: 16-09-001
Injection-Info: miucha.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="64277"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com"
Keywords: C, linux
Posted-Date: 04 Sep 2016 18:56:53 EDT

Le 02/09/2016 ` 05:01, Aharon Robbins a icrit :
  > Hi.
  >
  > Can I get recommendations for other (free) C compilers besides GCC
and CLANG?
  > I've been using the revived PCC for gawk development since it's faster
  > than GCC, but recently it's developed a bug where it won't compile the
  > current (valid) code.
  >
  > LCC seems to be 32 bit only and requires very manual configuration.
  >
  > TinyCC is blindingly fast, and can compile gawk, but is broken in that
  > it won't diagnose duplicate case statements inside switch. The developers
  > don't consider this a problem. So I refuse to use it.
  >
  > In short, I'm looking for a faster compiler that actually works.
  >
  > Thanks,
  >
  > Arnold


Hi Arnold


lcc-win, a 64 bit version of lcc, runs under linux but I have never
tried to make it a real compiler system since there are no customers.


Nobody buys compilers in linux, so, either you use gcc or clang, or you
just write your own. As you write above you want it "free". That is why
I have never developed under linux, since I do not like to work for
free. Why should I?


I understand the developers of TinyCC.


Why should they care? If you write duplicate switch cases its not their
fault, its yours.


It would take me several weeks of work to get lcc-win running.


It is very fast. It produces much better code than the original lcc, and
generates 64 bit code. That time would be just to get it running using
gas (the gnu assembler) and the gnu linker.


Other thing (also a derivative of lcc) that I have developed under linux
is a JIT. It will compile a source file into a buffer, and after
compiling it will jump into the generated code and execute it in the fly.


I developed that because I had a customer that wanted a linux version.


Why there are no other compilers besides gnu/clang?


Because, as you said, everybody assumes that no compensation will be
given to the guy/team that develops them.


Then linux is stuck with a single compiler that is very slow.


The intel compiler, the best compiler for the x86 environment runs under
linux. But that costs more than 700 dollars if memory serves.


You get what you pay for.



Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.