Re: PCC, was Compiler Design + feedback

Marco van de Voort <marcov@stack.nl>
Tue, 12 May 2009 11:25:54 +0000 (UTC)

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
Compiler Design + feedback herron.philip@googlemail.com (Philip Herron) (2009-04-21)
Re: Compiler Design + feedback cfc@shell01.TheWorld.com (Chris F Clark) (2009-04-21)
Re: Compiler Design + feedback herron.philip@googlemail.com (Philip Herron) (2009-04-22)
Re: PCC, was Compiler Design + feedback jthorn@astro.indiana.edu (Jonathan Thornburg) (2009-04-25)
Re: PCC, was Compiler Design + feedback toby@telegraphics.com.au (toby) (2009-05-10)
Re: PCC, was Compiler Design + feedback marcov@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) (2009-05-12)
Re: PCC, was Compiler Design + feedback nmh@T3X.ORG (Nils M Holm) (2009-05-12)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Marco van de Voort <marcov@stack.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 11:25:54 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Stack Usenet News Service
References: 09-04-044 09-04-046 09-04-048 09-04-063 09-05-059
Keywords: C, history, comment
Posted-Date: 12 May 2009 07:54:37 EDT

On 2009-05-11, toby <toby@telegraphics.com.au> wrote:
>> old "Portable C Compiler". According to the project website
>> http://pcc.ludd.ltu.se/
>> "The project goal is to write a C99 compiler while still keeping it
>> small, simple, fast and understandable.".
>
> I'm not sure one would start with pcc (!)


I would guess the BSD license. Afaik several BSD splinters are working on
reBSDing the userland.
[PCC was easy to understand and to modify. Its main shortcoming was that
it generated lousy code on machines where there are enough registers to
be interesting. -John]

Post a followup to this message

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