For your Info: I patched yarpgen, to generate the tons of printf on request. (Pull request send, but i'm not sure, if they want to update the old v1 codebase).
Compilation speed Info: I used 'time' on my old laptop with yarpgen_v1 in c99 mode for seed 1 to seed 200. (Default OPTIMIZE is '-O0') 368.65s TESTCC=tcc REFCC=gcc 371.67s TESTCC=tcc REFCC=clang 135.64s TESTCC=tcc REFCC=tcc
The goal of the last run was not to find failures, but to show the speed advantage of tcc. (on top of the scripttime)
I want to try OpenWatcom (v2 fork), but wcl386 is far too slow. See my OW bug 1045 from feb. 2023 (source attached there). (using seed 25 and yarpgen_v1 in 32bit mode) tcc: 0,4s gcc: 20,8s clang: 23,4s owcc: 490,4s
Yes, gcc/clang are about 50 times slower as tcc and ow is about 1000 times slower as tcc for this testcase.
Ping to grishka: What about fixing your bug for 'tcc -m32' / i386-tcc, which you introduced by reverting my patches and prepare a release of tcc 0.9.28?
That can give us 'tcc -m32' support at compiler-explorer with using just a simple '--enable-cross' during configure and also a much newer tcc codebase used in all linux distros.
When you need something to test, please let us know.
I would do a release, but i do not have write access.
When 0.9.28 is out, i suggest, that we work together to prepare for a tcc 1.0.0 release in the next months.