fast compilers [Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc] (Ozan Yigit)
Sat, 6 Feb 1993 05:56:08 GMT

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
Re: Architecture description languages for compilers? (1993-01-28)
Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc (Michael John Haertel) (1993-02-04)
fast compilers [Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc] (1993-02-06)
Re: fast compilers [Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc] (1993-02-07)
Re: fast compilers [Re: Thompson's 2c vs. gcc] (1993-02-11)
| List of all articles for this month |

Newsgroups: comp.compilers
From: (Ozan Yigit)
Keywords: performance, comment
Organization: York U. Student Information Systems Project
References: 93-01-205 93-02-042
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1993 05:56:08 GMT

Michael John Haertel writes:
      Thompson's claim that 2c typically compiles in 50% of the time gcc takes
      is probably an understatement, in fact. 2c is the most nearly I/O-bound
      compiler I've ever used.

I have not used 2c, but I have used Redelmeier's RCC, which is a very
fast non-optimizing ansi-c compiler. Last time I tested its speed, it
was able to compile [on a 68020 sun] gcc at around 30% of the time it
would take gcc to compile itself without -O.

Is there any interest in very fast compilers that sacrifice some code
compactness and speed [rcc-compiled gcc is ~30% slower than the usual
gcc compiled with gcc -O] for sheer compilation speed? Does the speed
of compilation have any impact on large-scale code development? [I do
think so, but I am biased. ;-)]

[Microsoft makes a fair amount of money selling Quick C, which compiles a
lot faster than regular MS C and produces worse code. Turbo C also leapt
into the market because it compiles so fast, using simple techniques like
buffering include files in RAM. -John]

Post a followup to this message

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