[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Tinycc-devel Digest, Vol 192, Issue 11

From: Ben Hutchinson
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Tinycc-devel Digest, Vol 192, Issue 11
Date: Sat, 18 May 2019 10:45:32 -0700

Date: Fri, 17 May 2019 06:06:18 +0200
From: Daniel Gl?ckner <address@hidden>

On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 04:09:51PM -0700, Ben Hutchinson wrote:
> The only reason I don't
> use GCC is that overall it is worse at generating bloated code,

No, try gcc -Os

   text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
 302619   30888  149624  483131   75f3b tcc built with tcc and defaults
 290108   30440  149720  470268   72cfc tcc built with tcc and ONE_SOURCE
 246727    1244  149768  397739   611ab tcc built with gcc 8.2 and defaults
 177105    1236  149768  328109   501ad tcc built with gcc -Os instead of -O2
 172536    1228  149760  323524   4efc4 tcc built with gcc -Os and ONE_SOURCE

The tcc built with gcc -Os is also about 43% faster on my
Atom 330 at compiling and linking itself (0.37s vs. 0.65s, median of 51

Best regards,


You missed the second half of the reason I gave. I also mentioned that it's because GCC is itself bloated. So using GCC is not an option. It requires MinGW to run in Windows (I'm a Windows user), so that means that using GCC by itself is simply not an option, because it won't run without its MinGW dependencies. This makes GCC very bloated (over 100MB in size), and thus not a viable alternative to TCC. Also, what is this " command line option you talk about in GCC?

The simple solution would be for you (or another developer of TCC) to just add a command line switch that when used causes TCC to not use the __stkchk function, and thus remove the requirement for this function to exist, and also prevent TCC from adding any extra code to the program's main code to call this function.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]