Am 21.05.17 um 12:38 schrieb bartc:
On 21/05/2017 10:32, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
Am 18.05.17 um 10:10 schrieb Christian Gollwitzer:
The whole discussion reminds me of the "bumblebees can't fly" thing.
tcc is a very small compiler (some 100kb) which supports most of C99.
For what it's worth, I compiled Python 3.6.1 on Linux/x86 using tcc. It
was a simple matter of cloning tcc, compiling/installing it and the doing
CC=tcc ./configure
make
BTW, how long did an incremental change take to build? I've measured 5
seconds before with gcc. Tcc might be slower in its generated code, but
if you just want to quickly see the result of a modification, that the
result might run at half the speed is irrelevant.
If I do
touch Python/Python-ast.c
time make python
it says
real 0m0.564s
user 0m0.394s
sys 0m0.149s
BTW the Xlinker option is a good example to see why autoconf is needed.
They were lazy and had a simple switch on `uname` to find the option,
instead of testing it with the compile-macros of autoconf.
(Not such good news for me, as now I feel obliged to make my own C
compiler manage it. And it sort of competes with tcc for compilation
speed (and size too but that wasn't intentional). However it lacks some
C99 features at the minute.)
haha :) Good luck with that. Remember, tcc supports x86, x86_64, MIPS,
ARM, ARM64, and C67, so it is a serious beast.
Christian
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
