Re: gcc 2.95 vs 3.21 performance

[Jeff Muizelaar <muizelaar@rogers.com>]

Andi Kleen wrote:

>If you want small and fast use lcc.
>
>Unfortunately it's not completely free (some weird license), doesn't
>really support real inline assembly and generates rather bad code compared 
>to gcc.
>
>I'm still looking forward to Open Watcom (http://www.openwatcom.org) - 
>they are near self hosting on Linux. The inline assembly is very VC++ style 
>though; very different from gcc and worse you have to write it in
>Intel syntax.
>
>Another alternative would be TenDRA, but it also has no inline assembly
>and it's C understanding can be only described as "fascist".
>
>If you don't care about free software you could also use the Intel
>compiler, which seems to be often faster in compile time than gcc now
>and can already compile kernels.
>
There is also tcc (http://fabrice.bellard.free.fr/tcc/)
It claims to support gcc-like inline assembler, appears to be much 
smaller and faster than gcc. Plus it is GPL so the liscense isn't a 
problem either.
Though, I am not really sure of the quality of code generated or of how 
mature it is.

-Jeff