Re: Python compiled by tcc
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 real0m0.564s user0m0.394s 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
Re: Python compiled by tcc
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 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. That's good news, the fact that such a small compiler can go a good way towards compiling quite an elaborate project, with only some technicalities getting in the way. (And it makes you wonder what on earth those other tools are up to.) 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. (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.) -- bartc -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Python compiled by tcc
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
