Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You're not using tcc, because the language literally tells you so, you get a GCC error, and you get 10x slower compilation time.

I think it's pretty clear.

Anyway, now that we are clear on the compilation speed claim, can you please list a couple of those extraordinary claims?



Did you even bother to read what he pasted? Tcc is used in the first set of commands that do not terminate.


He is in fact reading it, please look again at what he pasted. It really seems somehow you're getting your wires crossed.


No he didn't understand at all. Both the OP and I'm saying that while `make` claims that tcc was not used, the compiler does seem to use tcc even in that case. I have demonstrated that this is a plausible explanation by moving the tcc binary and showing the stark performance difference.

(This is my final response on this matter. I have already given enough information and an inability to interpret it is not my business.)


I admit I misread, and you do indeed use TCC.

I've just tested it, and turns out all C compilers are terrible at hundreds of thousands of print calls (for me Clang was stuck for minutes with 100% cpu usage).

The claim was made about actual code, like the V compiler itself, which is about 220k loc and compiles in 0.3 seconds, not some unrealistic test with a million of prints.

I'll make it clear on the home page with a link to the benchmark.


Understandable to misread - I, funnily, did as well as I was quickly going down through the original comment + replies.


[flagged]


Human decency is a foreign concept to a lot of folks, eh?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: