Am 21.05.17 um 12:38 schrieb bartc:
On 21/05/2017 10:32, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
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

BTW, how long did an incremental change take to build? I've measured 5 seconds before with gcc. Tcc might be slower in its generated code, but if you just want to quickly see the result of a modification, that the result might run at half the speed is irrelevant.

If I do

touch Python/Python-ast.c
time make python

it says

real    0m0.564s
user    0m0.394s
sys     0m0.149s


BTW the Xlinker option is a good example to see why autoconf is needed. They were lazy and had a simple switch on `uname` to find the option, instead of testing it with the compile-macros of autoconf.

(Not such good news for me, as now I feel obliged to make my own C compiler manage it. And it sort of competes with tcc for compilation speed (and size too but that wasn't intentional). However it lacks some C99 features at the minute.)

haha :) Good luck with that. Remember, tcc supports x86, x86_64, MIPS, ARM, ARM64, and C67, so it is a serious beast.

        Christian
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Reply via email to