Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| Related articles |
|---|
| Code quality drw@zermelo.mit.edu (1993-01-06) |
| Re: Code quality davidm@questor.rational.com (1993-01-06) |
| Re: lcc intel backend? compile time? rds95@csc.albany.edu (1993-10-13) |
| Re: lcc intel backend? compile time? graham@pact.srf.ac.uk (1993-10-13) |
| Re: lcc intel backend? compile time? cliffc@rice.edu (1993-10-13) |
| Re: lcc intel backend? compile time? rds95@csc.albany.edu (1993-10-13) |
| Re: lcc intel backend? compile time? pardo@cs.washington.edu (1993-10-20) |
| Re: lcc intel backend? compile time? henry@zoo.toronto.edu (1993-10-20) |
| Re: lcc intel backend? compile time? tchannon@black.demon.co.uk (1993-10-21) |
| Re: lcc intel backend? compile time? henry@zoo.toronto.edu (1993-10-22) |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| From: | rds95@csc.albany.edu (Robert Seals) |
| Keywords: | C, 386 |
| Organization: | State University of New York at Albany |
| References: | 93-01-020 93-01-017 |
| Date: | Wed, 13 Oct 1993 02:50:04 GMT |
(Gavin Thomas Nicol) writes:
> [fast compilation...] makes [lcc] ideal for the development stages where
>fast compile times are more important than good code [...]
rds95@csc.albany.edu (Robert Seals) writes:
>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 ...
OK. Imagine compiling GCC with GCC on a 386 16MHz Linux system with 3MB of
main memory. Then imagine doing that, and a few other things as well. Then
imagine that you have limited disk space where every 100k counts.
This is not a contrived example. I know people running Linux on systems
with 2-4MB, and with 60MB of less of hard disk. Lcc would probably make a
big difference to such people (though I can't prove it).
I'm very much looking forward to reading the book on lcc.
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.