Re: gcc 2.95 vs 3.21 performance

["Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org>]

On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote:

| In article <3E4045D1.4010704@rogers.com>,
| Jeff Muizelaar  <muizelaar@rogers.com> wrote:
| >
| >There is also tcc (http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/tcc/)
| >It claims to support gcc-like inline assembler, appears to be much
| >smaller and faster than gcc. Plus it is GPL so the liscense isn't a
| >problem either.
| >Though, I am not really sure of the quality of code generated or of how
| >mature it is.
|
| tcc is interesting.  The code generation is pretty simplistic (read:
| trivially horrible for most things), but it sure is fast and small.  And
| judging by the changelog, Fabrice is trying to compile the kernel with
| it.
|
| For a lot of problems, small-and-fast is good.  Hell, some of the things
| I'd personally find interesting don't have any code generation part at
| all (static analysis of annotated source-code - stanford checker on the
| cheap).
Yep, that's exactly why I'm interested...

| And development doesn't always need good code generation (right
| now some people use "gcc -O0" for that, because anything else hurts too
| much.  Now, the code from tcc will probably look more like "-O-1", but
| at least you can test out things _quickly_).

-- 
~Randy