Thank you so much, Michael and Herman for fixing
the remaining yarpgen(v1) bugs,
which i found with my testscript so far. (yarpgen.sh)
The yarpgen.sh testscript was born out of my csmith testscript (csmith.sh).
For your Info:
I patched yarpgen, to generate the tons of printf on request.
(Pull request send, but i'm not sure, if they want to update the old v1 codebase).
Compilation speed Info:
I used 'time' on my old laptop with yarpgen_v1 in c99 mode for seed 1 to seed 200.
(Default OPTIMIZE is '-O0')
368.65s TESTCC=tcc REFCC=gcc
371.67s TESTCC=tcc REFCC=clang
135.64s TESTCC=tcc REFCC=tcc
The goal of the last run was not to find failures,
but to show the speed advantage of tcc. (on top of the scripttime)
####
I want to try OpenWatcom (v2 fork), but wcl386 is far too slow.
See my OW bug 1045 from feb. 2023 (source attached there).
(using seed 25 and yarpgen_v1 in 32bit mode)
tcc: 0,4s
gcc: 20,8s
clang: 23,4s
owcc: 490,4s
Yes, gcc/clang are about 50 times slower as tcc
and ow is about 1000 times slower as tcc for this testcase.
####
Ping to grishka:
What about fixing your bug for 'tcc -m32' / i386-tcc,
which you introduced by reverting my patches
and prepare a release of tcc 0.9.28?
That can give us 'tcc -m32' support at compiler-explorer
with using just a simple '--enable-cross' during configure
and also a much newer tcc codebase used in all linux distros.
When you need something to test, please let us know.
I would do a release, but i do not have write access.
When 0.9.28 is out, i suggest,
that we work together to prepare for a tcc 1.0.0 release in the next months.
--
Regards, Detlef
_______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel