Steve Naroff wrote:- > My only point was it's always going to be hard to do an "apple to > apple" comparison. I brought up "Tiny C" as a way to dramatize my point.
As you note, TCC is quite uninteresting at it makes essentially no attempt to conform to the standard, and doing so would require a major rewrite and slow it down considerably. > I am not familiar with LibTomMath - I would guess it isn't header rich. > > If your cfe has a "-E" switch, it might be interesting to see how it > compares with clang. If there isn't a big difference in preprocessor > performance, we know it is likely to be in the AST building and > semantic analysis. Heh, embarassingly it seems to have "regressed" in the -E department, with a segfault or two :) Notably the only area that isn't regtested. I'm doubtful of the value of the comparison anyway, though, as e.g. clang takes care to avoid pastes, I do not, and I take care to preserve the form of whitespace, whereas clang does not. I've always felt -E timings are more representive of buffering strategy than anything else. Neil. _______________________________________________ cfe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
