my compiler is just as fast as your super strong and manly systems programming language compiler, and smaller than your compiler's documentation.
Top-level
my compiler is just as fast as your super strong and manly systems programming language compiler, and smaller than your compiler's documentation. 10 comments
@ekaitz_zarraga yeah, I started diggin in when I was considering getting involved in #gccrust, but dear lord is it gnarly. I think thats where the gn- may actually originate. @rml I am backporting gcc 4.6 to RISCV. I managed to make it output RV binaries but there's still work to do... It was way easier than I thought it would be. But it was still difficult :) bootstraps itself in less than a minute. produces statically linked binaries. makes up the core foundation of many of todays most innovative programming languages, and everyone who uses it has a blast. but yeah I guess working with heavy duty infrastructure that can't feasibly be forked has its merits. not that chez would be particularly easy to maintain, but I already spend a good deal of free time studying the source just because its one of the coolest code bases I've ever seen (much like guix, except a totally different philosophy), and i'm eager to learn the concepts. I'll take a 70k LoC over a million+ any day. I am currently using Mecrisp Forth on a STM32WLE5 (64kB RAM, 256kB Flash) target. Compiler (to machine code) built-in and running on target, has a disassembler on target. REPL-over-serialport on target. All in ~40-50kB of the Flash. FreeRTOS + LoraWAN stack in C occupies ~130-140kB of Flash. Back in the days; GEM was a Windowing system running in 1MB RAM computers. Nowadays, few websites are less than 10x that. Are we doomed? |
@rml i don't know about the rest but GCC's codebase is obscenely large.
Also, something many people doesn't know, the CC in gcc means compiler COLLECTION, which means it's not just one compiler but many.
It's insane.
It's still kind of easier to read than badly written smaller projects :)