Thanks Charles. I agree completely and will add that they will pry Ken's compilers, so wonderfully supported by you, from my cold, dead fingers. South Suite's new kernel will always be compiled with 6c. As far as performance goes, to paraphrase Chuck Yeager, it's not the compiler, it's the coder. I'd rather have brilliant coders than idiot savant compilers.
bwc iPhone email > On Mar 12, 2015, at 11:23 AM, Charles Forsyth <charles.fors...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> On 12 March 2015 at 10:06, Charles Forsyth <charles.fors...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I've used it and lib9 in several other projects where other compilers >> couldn't be used for licensing reasons, or because they were awful. > > I'll add that the compilers are great for kernel and other New World systems > work. > Once stable on a given platform, they've been quite robust (I never suspect > them at the start as a bug cause). > Code quality is rarely a bottleneck for systems work in my experience > (and there's a good reason that removing -O3 is a way to fix bugs with other > compilers). > If I were writing scientific computation, I wouldn't use C anyway, but if I > did, I'd worry > much more about the effectiveness of optimisation. For systems work? It's > really, really low on the list. > The cross-module type checking has also spotted a few things that every other > compiler missed. > > Cross-compilation is easy and precise, with next to no configuration required, > unlike nearly all the others; I rely on that a lot. It's worth the price of > entry for that alone, for me, > having suffered with gcc on an old OS project of mine; I'd never use it again > for anything new. > (Obviously I still use gcc for the 8 hour[!] Linux kernel compiles and > builds.) > > lcc used to include all the code generators, so I suppose that would be just > as good, except > that it spits out assembly and you have to rely on external components, which > still leaves you cross when attempting > to cross-compile. > > > >
