Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux?

BartC <bc@freeuk.com>
Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:49:40 +0100

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[26 earlier articles]
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? DrDiettrich1@netscape.net (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2016-09-30)
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? arnold@skeeve.com (2016-09-30)
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? bc@freeuk.com (BartC) (2016-09-30)
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? bc@freeuk.com (BartC) (2016-09-30)
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? DrDiettrich1@netscape.net (Hans-Peter Diettrich) (2016-09-30)
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? bc@freeuk.com (BartC) (2016-10-01)
Re: Alternative C compilers on x86_64 Linux? bc@freeuk.com (BartC) (2016-10-17)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: BartC <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2016 22:49:40 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
References: 16-09-001 16-09-033 16-09-034 16-09-035 16-09-037 16-09-042 16-09-048
Injection-Info: miucha.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="78024"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com"
Keywords: C, performance
Posted-Date: 21 Oct 2016 13:00:53 EDT

On 30/09/2016 12:28, BartC wrote:
> On 29/09/2016 14:03, BartC wrote:
>
>> [Tokenizing 10M lines/sec is pretty impressive. In compilers that don't
>> do heavy optimization
>> the lexer is usually the slowest part since it's the only thing that has
>> to touch each
>> character of the source code individually. -John]
>
> This is what I was putting to the test. Actually I struggled to recreate
> that benchmark, but in the end managed to process actual C source (a
> monolithic file containing all CPython sources) at some 9.7Mlps. Figures
> do depend on the source style.


I've put a version of that test program here as a C file:


https://github.com/bartg/langs/blob/master/clex.c


When I ran this on an original Raspberry Pi that struggled to do
anything fast (gcc ran at 500 lines per second, unoptimised), it managed
1.3M lines per second.




--
Bartc



Post a followup to this message

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