Re: gcc 2.95 vs 3.21 performance

Andrea Arcangeli
2003-02-10T22:16:49Z

On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 12:51:12AM +0100, Jakob Oestergaard wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 03:21:01PM -0800, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > I'd love to see a small - and fast - C compiler, and I'd be willing to
> > > make kernel changes to make it work with it.
> >
> > I can't offer any immediate help with this but I want the same thing. At
> > some point, we're planning on funding some extensions into GCC or whatever
> > reasonable C compiler is around:
>
> [snipping Linus from To:]
>
> Cool.
>
> >
> > - associative arrays as a builtin type
> >
> > {
> > assoc bar = {}; // anonymous, no file backing
> >
> > bar{"some key"} = "some value";
> > if (defined(bar{"some other value"})) ...
> > }
>
> Allow me:
>
> {
> std::map<std::string,std::string> bar;
>
> bar["some key"] = "some value";
> if (bar.find("some other value") != bar.end()) ...
> }

Indeed. Hardcoding map and multimap templates with string,string
parameter in the language sounds like a very worthless effort. If he
wants an high level syntax on top of the abstractions he should use a
more high level language. C can do everything but it's going to be a
sintax like what we do in the kernel, with lists, rbtrees, structures of
pointer to functions etc..

> Works beautifully, all you need is to pick the existing language which
> allows for the existing standard library which already provide that
> functionality.
>
> I doubt there's much need for a C+ or C 2+/3 langauage variant ;)
>
> >
> > - regular expressions
> >
> > {
> > char *foo = "blech";
> >
> > if (foo =~ /regex are nice/) {
> > printf("Well isn't that special?\n");
> > }
> > }
>
> Ok, I can't help you with that.
>
> You have probably seen a Perl program before... Now imagine a two
> million line Perl program... That is why the above is not a good idea ;)

actually the python syntax for re is quite nice, and would be pretty
compatible with C, no magic perl =~ operator etc.. again a library like
STL in an highlevel language would do the trick just fine.

>
> It's still your right to want it of course...
>
> >
> > - tk bindings built in
>
> Built into the language (not a library)?

Oh my.

>
> <sarcasm>
> Then I'd want the compiler in a kernel module ;)
> </>

then I want insmod kde.o too ;)

Andrea