[Top][All Lists]

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

[Tinycc-devel] How many pases tcc doesn? Could we make a faster compiler

From: rempas
Subject: [Tinycc-devel] How many pases tcc doesn? Could we make a faster compiler than tcc for another language?
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2021 11:01:10 +0100 (CET)

It is said that TCC is a single pass compiler but is this true? I mean unless 
definition of "pass" is not what I think, isn't TCC also preprocessing the file 
it should do more right? Let's conciser the following code:


#include <stdio.h>

#define final add(17, 173)

#define add(a, b) a + b

int main() {
  printf("%d", final);


Here the macro "add" should be expanded inside the macro "final" but how does
TCC knows about "add" if it is defined after "final". How many passe does it 
What's the approach TCC takes in this case? The "#include" preprocessor also 
a lot of unnecessary re-writes to a new bigger file while we could just use 
to just read the symbols and their decloration and not the actual definition

What happens now if we try to create a new language that doesn't have 
and is a true single pass? From what I heard, other than preprocessing, the 
syntax of the
C programming language doesn't help either. A lot of things are not clear 
because the syntax
for a lot of things are the same up to a point. Consider the following example:


// Function decoration
int add(int x, int y);

// Function definition
int add(int x, int y) { }


What do you see? Yes the signature is the same up to the closing parentheses. 
So we
don't know what's going on up to this point. Now consider an example in our new 


// Function decoration
dec fn add(int, int) => int;

// Function definition
fn add(int x, int y) => int { }


In this case we know now what's going one from the first word so the parses 
doesn't have
to check for any unnecessary cases. Watch how we could also just include only 
the type of
each parameter in the declaration as we simple don't care because it's only the 
signature and
not the actual body. Function pointers are also a mess. The same for casting 
without specifying
pretty much anything other than parentheses. This things also look bad in the 
eye of the

So for the main point of the article? For anyone that is experienced with TCC 
and with compiler
and parser design in general, could we make anything at least 15-20% faster 
than TCC that will
also have syntax that looks better and more clear?

P.S. If you are intersted about what I said about the C syntax, you can check 
the following link
where I made the question and I got a great answer which is the answer I gave 
you here but
with more detail and explanation. Link:

reply via email to

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