4 ms·
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. An
by 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 agoDid you even bother to read what he pasted? Tcc is used in the first set of commands that do not terminate.
- ylluminate 4y agoHe is in fact reading it, please look again at what he pasted. It really seems somehow you're getting your wires crossed.
- lifthrasiir 4y agoNo 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 agoI 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 agoUnderstandable to misread - I, funnily, did as well as I was quickly going down through the original comment + replies.
- super_flanker 4y ago
- ylluminate 4y agoHuman decency is a foreign concept to a lot of folks, eh?