Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux?

arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins)
Tue, 27 Sep 2016 05:40:55 -0000 (UTC)

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[11 earlier articles]
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? rockbrentwood@gmail.com (2016-09-07)
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com (2016-09-12)
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? bc@freeuk.com (BartC) (2016-09-12)
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com (2016-09-13)
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com (2016-09-14)
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? rugxulo@gmail.com (2016-09-26)
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com (2016-09-27)
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? rugxulo@gmail.com (2016-09-27)
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2016-09-28)
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? bc@freeuk.com (BartC) (2016-09-28)
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2016-09-28)
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com (2016-09-29)
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com (2016-09-29)
[9 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |
From: arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins)
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 05:40:55 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
References: 16-09-001 16-09-033
Injection-Info: miucha.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="19064"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com"
Keywords: C
Posted-Date: 27 Sep 2016 14:36:33 EDT

Hi. Thanks for your note.


In article 16-09-033, <rugxulo@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 2:02:33 PM UTC-5, Aharon Robbins wrote:
>>
>> Can I get recommendations for other (free) C compilers besides
>> GCC and CLANG?
>>
>> In short, I'm looking for a faster compiler that actually works.
>
>I'm not sure what miracle advice you expected to get from here.


I develop locally. My system is Ubuntu 16.04 with gcc 5.4 on a Skylake
Core i5. /proc/cpuinfo claims 4 CPUs, so there are likely two hyperthreaded
physical cores and there's plenty of RAM. The machine is quite fast,
even though it's using a conventional disk.


I often have to go through this cycle:


make distclean
./bootstrap.sh # set modification times on some files
./configure && make && make check


For example, when merging into the (too-many) different branches
and encountering a conflict.


The time difference between using tcc on the one hannd and GCC + make
-j on the other is quite noticeable; tcc + make -j is even faster.
Doing many builds an hour can happen, and a faster compiler saves me time.
tcc also makes a VERY noticeable difference in the time it takes
to run configure.


When I posted, tcc wasn't an option since it didn't check for duplicate
case labels, and PCC had stopped working for me. So I was seeking an
additional, fast compiler.


Dorking with the Makefile to only use -O on certain files isn't really
an option; autotools sets things up to compile everything the same way
and for the shipped tarball that is the right option.


Similarly, I don't really wish to switch off the autotools; I've too
much time and experience invested in them. They work, crufty as they are,
and I have not had to invest any real time in keeping things up to date
with respect to them.


Since I originally posted, someone suggested that I just fix tcc on
my own. I was able to do this with less than 2 hours work so now
I'm back to being fat, dumb and happy. :-)


Thanks,


Arnold
--
Aharon (Arnold) Robbins arnold AT skeeve DOT com


Post a followup to this message

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