Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.
| From: | George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> |
| Newsgroups: | comp.compilers |
| Date: | Wed, 28 Sep 2016 01:01:10 -0400 |
| Organization: | A noiseless patient Spider |
| References: | 16-09-001 16-09-033 16-09-034 |
| Injection-Info: | miucha.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="51681"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" |
| Keywords: | C, practice |
| Posted-Date: | 28 Sep 2016 12:17:58 EDT |
On Tue, 27 Sep 2016 05:40:55 -0000 (UTC), arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon
Robbins) wrote:
>I develop locally. My system is Ubuntu 16.04 with gcc 5.4 on a Skylake
>Core i5. /proc/cpuinfo claims 4 CPUs, so there are likely two hyperthreaded
>physical cores and there's plenty of RAM.
The i5 has 4 non-HT cores.
>The time difference between using tcc on the one hand and GCC + make
>-j on the other is quite noticeable; tcc + make -j is even faster.
>Doing many builds an hour can happen, and a faster compiler saves me time.
>tcc also makes a VERY noticeable difference in the time it takes
>to run configure.
If you really have plenty of RAM, why not create a ramdisk? Or put
in an SSD for the tmp filesystem?
>Since I originally posted, someone suggested that I just fix tcc on
>my own. I was able to do this with less than 2 hours work so now
>I'm back to being fat, dumb and happy. :-)
As long as you don't expect the same level of optimization. TCC is
nice for quick development turn-around, but it doesn't produce the
fastest code.
George
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.