5 ms·
What I mean is what I said :-) 70k is not tiny. And one cannot just throw away a backend and say that it's not part of the compiler. Compare it with a few othe
by vkazanov 7y ago
What I mean is what I said :-) 70k is not tiny. And one cannot just throw away a backend and say that it's not part of the compiler.
Compare it with a few others:
8cc/9cc - 10K LOC
cproc - 7K LOC
lcc - 30K LOC
- tom_mellior 7y ago> And one cannot just throw away a backend and say that it's not part of the compiler. OK. Let me rephrase: TCC doesn't have 35k lines of code, but with five minutes' work it could be turned into a compiler with 35k lines of code capable of bootstrapping GCC on Linux. That should be enough to compare it to the ones you list.
- vkazanov 7y agoThat's an interesting way to put it. :-D I believe we could do that to a lot of other compilers, say, lcc (30k) with its multiple backends and get something like 10-20k. Anyways, what I was trying to say is that "tiny" in "tinycc" has lost its meaning already.
- userbinator 7y agocproc is not 7K self-contained either; from the GitHub page: "cproc is a C11 compiler using QBE as a backend".
- vkazanov 7y agothat's correct. But even if you add qbe you only get 12k more, or about 20k, not 70k.