Re: gcc 2.95 vs 3.21 performance

b_adlakha
2003-02-04T23:02:36Z

Jeff Muizelaar writes:

> 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

wow, looks like some teenage kid like me made it...
its a 170 kb gzipped tar!
nice for a C compiler...But i'm not sure if it could compile half of the
linux kernel successfully...