MessiahAndrw wrote:
Tommy wrote:
Otherwise, Fasm & TCC are a good choice. GCC is large, slow, and generates poor code.
Excuse me and define "poor"? Please citate or show proof.
This is not me who is behind these criticisms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Compiler_Collection#Possible_future_alternatives.
MessiahAndrw wrote:
Tommy wrote:
On the over hand, TCC is small and fast. But the code isn't the most optimized.
So in your case neither compilers generate 'good' code.
I didn't say that. The purpose of this article is not to say that TCC is the best, but to show that we can make an OS with other
compilers than GCC. Here are all features of TCC:
> TCC compiles C code about 9 times faster than GCC.
> TCC generates averagely optimized x86 code.
> TCC supports the ISO C99 standard (even if this support is not as complete as PCC).
> Under Linux, TCC can be used as a C interpreter (just add '#!/usr/local/bin/tcc -run' at the first line of your C source, and execute it directly from the command line).
> TCC has few dependencies. Only libc is required for its compilation.
> TCC includes a linker and an assembler (for x86 only).