Re: gcc 2.95 vs 3.21 performance

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>]

Neil Booth wrote:
> Jeff Muizelaar wrote:-
> 
> 
>>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.
> 
> 
> It doesn't expand macros correctly, however, and accepts an enormous
> range of invalid code without a single diagnostic.  I'm pretty sure
> it's arithmetic rules are incorrect, too.  It's certainly nowhere
> near C89 compliance.


100% agreed.

However, for our purposes, TinyCC is only missing two pieces needed for 
successfully building a bootable kernel:

* __builtin_constant_p
* function inlining

Given the existing TinyCC source base, function inlining is a big step 
(since tcc doesn't do AST-like things currently), so don't expect that 
very soon.  TinyCC is a fun little project to watch and play around 
with, though, and can compile most major open source projects, as well 
as itself.

	Jeff