For the curious: I have been compiling several of my projects with both tcc and gcc for awhile now. Specifically, I've been compiling an ANTLR C project that consist of about 60,000 lines of ANLTR generated code that translates another language to C. As you would expect, the compilation with tcc is noticeably faster. The runtime performance of scanning, parsing, and translating a ~100 line file is:
gcc= ~.000850 sec tcc= ~.001050 sec I've done other test as well (microbenchmarks), but in those test there was no noticeable difference. The state of my machine seemed to be the biggest variable even for long running loops. On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 3:53 AM, Gary Birkett <liq...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 3:20 AM, Stephan Beal <sgb...@googlemail.com>wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Gary Birkett <liq...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> :) >>> >>> >>> Why not test it? :) >>> >> >> The milliseconds won't matter for what i'm doing - the database access >> times swamp any overhead introduced by a non-optimizing compiler. >> >> :) >> >> (You're not going to convince me to not be impressed with tcc's speed ;) > > > I am already impressed with its reported build speed, though I am curious > at just how much of a difference the optimisation steps in gcc actually > make. > I would test myself, but most of the things I build are for ARM, hence my > asking you to try some tests since you are using it :) > > Regards, > > Gary Birkett > >> >> >> -- >> ----- stephan beal >> http://wanderinghorse.net/home/stephan/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tinycc-devel mailing list >> Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org >> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Tinycc-devel mailing list > Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel > >
_______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
