Am 18.05.17 um 10:10 schrieb Christian Gollwitzer:
The whole discussion reminds me of the "bumblebees can't fly" thing.
tcc is a very small compiler (some 100kb) which supports most of C99.
For what it's worth, I compiled Python 3.6.1 on Linux/x86 using tcc. It
was a simple matter of cloning tcc, compiling/installing it and the doing
CC=tcc ./configure
make
in the Python source folder. It only failed at the final linker step,
because the tcc linker does not understand the flags -Xlinker
-export-dynamic.
The compilation was extremely fast, it took 5s of wall clock time and 3s
of user time to go from the sources to the python executable.
The ./python executable generated this way does work as far as I can
tell, however "make test" fails with an import error - module "socket"
is not available. Additionally, after linking "python", the compilation
went on and required a C++ compiler, which was no problem in itself, but
of course fell back to g++ - tcc only supports pure C.
So IMHO it should be a breeze to compile a pure C Python extension into
something which successfully runs with the gcc compiled python.
On OSX, it was not successfull, because tcc cannot yet create executable
binaries on disk in Mach-O format, however, ibraries are possible and
runtime-linking (JIT) works without problems.
I guess that compiling the full thing on Windows could work with CC=tcc,
if the GNU utils arae available (Cygwin/MSYS/Linux subsystem)
Christian
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
