From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 15:19:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 15:19:11 -0500 Received: from jive.SoftHome.net ([66.54.152.27]:10195 "HELO jive.SoftHome.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 15:19:10 -0500 References: <200302052021.h15KLrXv000881@darkstar.example.net> In-Reply-To: <200302052021.h15KLrXv000881@darkstar.example.net> From: b_adlakha@softhome.net To: John Bradford Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: gcc 2.95 vs 3.21 performance Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 13:28:46 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [210.214.82.239] Message-ID: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org John Bradford writes: >> No really, I downloaded tcc yesterday, compiled a few things with it and it >> is REALLY fast...and as I wrote yesterday, its small enough so people might >> say: >> >> A: "I can't compile linux, what is wrong?" >> B: "Here, compile it with the compiler attached to this message" >> >> Sounds like fun doesn't it? I mean, tcc is a working C compiler (thats >> supposed to be a great thing), and its only 170 kb gzipped tar! > > I haven't actually had chance to test tcc yet, but I'll try to > tomorrow. How close is it to being able to compile the kernel? > > John. Far away, it doesn't even compile the ncurses based menuconfig...I think we need to hack (seriously) either tcc or linux... Since tcc is so small it would be easier to make it run it (bit) more like gcc, than modifying the whole kernel...