Re: lcc intel backend? compile time?

(Gavin Thomas Nicol) writes:
: > [fast compilation...] makes [lcc] ideal for the development stages where
: >fast compile times are more important than good code [...]
Robert Seals (rds95@csc.albany.edu) wrote:
: This has been the conventional wisdom for at least as long as I can
: remember (so I'm young). But frankly, I've never had undue difficulty with
: the compile time of small-to-medium programs - particularly since it's
: natural to break C source into compilation units ...


Two comments in reply :-


a) for even medium sized source files optimisation can make the
compilation noticably slower - GCC for example on medium sized files
on the top optimisation level! The problem is that the optimisation
phases often use a lot of memory, which unless you have it, can
bog your machine down.


b) this whole idea is to be taken a step further. Development should be
done in interpreted languages so you cut out the link time associated with
compiled programs. Link time is becoming less of a problem with newer
linking strategies but on large programs its a pain!


graham
[We've all got so accustomed to slow, piggy, compilers that we've forgotten
what a fast compiler is like. Back in about 1975, the Dartmouth Basic
compiler was so fast that it typically compiled your entire program in the
time it took for the carriage of your teletype to return after the RUN
command. -John]
--

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