3 ms·

You're not using the tcc backend. It says Note: `tcc` was not used, so unless you install it yourself, your backend C compiler will be `cc`, which is usua

You're not using the tcc backend. It says Note: `tcc` was not used, so unless you install it yourself, your backend C compiler will be `cc`, which is usually either `clang`, `gcc` or `msvc`. Also you have "gcc" in your error: See <file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-7/README.Bugs> And on the website the claim is made for tcc and x64 backends. Like I said, no way it'd take 15 seconds :)

lifthrasiir 4y ago
If I was not using the tcc backend for the first execution, then why would the second execution without tcc.exe be timed out? (I have also checked strace just like the OP.) It seems unlikely that the first execution and the second execution use the same gcc and still behave in such diverging ways. And if my reasoning is incorrect, please do not instinctively reply to me (I had enough) and put a proper diagnostic to tell whether TCC is being used, since it looks like a genuine confusion.
- amedvednikov 4y ago
  You're not using tcc, because the language literally tells you so, you get a GCC error, and you get 10x slower compilation time. I think it's pretty clear. Anyway, now that we are clear on the compilation speed claim, can you please list a couple of those extraordinary claims?
  - vlang1dot0 4y ago
    Did you even bother to read what he pasted? Tcc is used in the first set of commands that do not terminate.
    - ylluminate 4y ago
      He is in fact reading it, please look again at what he pasted. It really seems somehow you're getting your wires crossed.
      - lifthrasiir 4y ago
        No he didn't understand at all. Both the OP and I'm saying that while `make` claims that tcc was not used, the compiler does seem to use tcc even in that case. I have demonstrated that this is a plausible explanation by moving the tcc binary and showing the stark performance difference. (This is my final response on this matter. I have already given enough information and an inability to interpret it is not my business.)
        amedvednikov 4y ago
        I admit I misread, and you do indeed use TCC. I've just tested it, and turns out all C compilers are terrible at hundreds of thousands of print calls (for me Clang was stuck for minutes with 100% cpu usage). The claim was made about actual code, like the V compiler itself, which is about 220k loc and compiles in 0.3 seconds, not some unrealistic test with a million of prints. I'll make it clear on the home page with a link to the benchmark.
        ylluminate 4y ago
        Understandable to misread - I, funnily, did as well as I was quickly going down through the original comment + replies.
        super_flanker 4y ago
        ylluminate 4y ago
        Human decency is a foreign concept to a lot of folks, eh?

lifthrasiir 4y ago

If I was not using the tcc backend for the first execution, then why would the second execution without tcc.exe be timed out? (I have also checked strace just like the OP.) It seems unlikely that the first execution and the second execution use the same gcc and still behave in such diverging ways. And if my reasoning is incorrect, please do not instinctively reply to me (I had enough) and put a proper diagnostic to tell whether TCC is being used, since it looks like a genuine confusion.

amedvednikov 4y ago
You're not using tcc, because the language literally tells you so, you get a GCC error, and you get 10x slower compilation time. I think it's pretty clear. Anyway, now that we are clear on the compilation speed claim, can you please list a couple of those extraordinary claims?
- vlang1dot0 4y ago
  Did you even bother to read what he pasted? Tcc is used in the first set of commands that do not terminate.
  - ylluminate 4y ago
    He is in fact reading it, please look again at what he pasted. It really seems somehow you're getting your wires crossed.
    - lifthrasiir 4y ago
      No he didn't understand at all. Both the OP and I'm saying that while `make` claims that tcc was not used, the compiler does seem to use tcc even in that case. I have demonstrated that this is a plausible explanation by moving the tcc binary and showing the stark performance difference. (This is my final response on this matter. I have already given enough information and an inability to interpret it is not my business.)
      - amedvednikov 4y ago
        I admit I misread, and you do indeed use TCC. I've just tested it, and turns out all C compilers are terrible at hundreds of thousands of print calls (for me Clang was stuck for minutes with 100% cpu usage). The claim was made about actual code, like the V compiler itself, which is about 220k loc and compiles in 0.3 seconds, not some unrealistic test with a million of prints. I'll make it clear on the home page with a link to the benchmark.
        ylluminate 4y ago
        Understandable to misread - I, funnily, did as well as I was quickly going down through the original comment + replies.
        super_flanker 4y ago
        ylluminate 4y ago
        Human decency is a foreign concept to a lot of folks, eh?