Greetings everybody,
a rebuild of Debian with clang was done recently and it led to a segmentation
fault for tcc when running the test. Also, several warning were issued by
clang, which is better than gcc for static analysis as far as I know. The full
log is attached to this email.
An example
Hi,
I also always thought tcc doesn't optimize the Code as much as the other
Compilers and so the Executables must be significantly slower.
And some of you also posted examples here that are corresponding to this
assumption but have you seen the benchmarks by staalmannen on phoronix.com?
Link
Le mardi 6 mars 2012 16:06:06, sebus...@gmx.de a écrit :
Hi,
Hi,
[SNIP]
PS: I just subscribed to this list so i coudn't just reply to the Mail in
the Subject. I hope it lands in the right Thread (don't know the Maillist
Software either)
For this you would have had to set correctly
Personally, I can't say that tcc execution speed is close to other C
compilers.
Results from my OpenLisp benchmarks (see www.eligis.com)
All tests are run on the same machine.
You can see that TCC (Tiny C Compiler) is always between 3x to 10x slower!!!
than gcc and/or VC++.
The funny thing is
On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Christian Jullien eli...@orange.fr wrote:
**
You can see that TCC (Tiny C Compiler)* is always between** 3**x to 10x
slower**!!!*** than gcc and/or VC++.
The original post being referred to was from me (i remember it well). Just
to clarify: my (continued)
To be clear, I never complained about tcc execution speed.
The compilation speed is amazing and, I've profound respect to this,
compiled code produce expected result. OpenLisp has a huge non-regression
tests suite and code compiled with tcc passes them all.
Tcc is one of my favorite
I have just commited few more osx improvements. I would appreciate if
anyone with interest in osx would give it a try.
Miki.
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
