5 ms·

Not to be confused with https://bellard.org/tcc/ https://bellard.org/tcc/, which is a tiny compiler for the C language.

squarefoot 4y ago
It is sad that tcc is unmaintained as it would be really useful in small embedded systems. I just tried it on Debian and compilation fails without #undefining CONFIG_TCC_MALLOC_HOOKS in lib/bcheck.c. After compilation it passes tests, but they warn that it could be unreliable.
- jart 4y ago
  Try chibicc. It's x86_64 native and so much more readable as a codebase than TCC.
- dantrell 4y ago
  While Fabrice Bellard is no longer working on TCC [0] and an official release tarball hasn't been packaged since version 0.9.27 (5 years ago) the project is by no means unmaintained. For details, check their current working repository [1] and mailing list [2]. [0]: https://bellard.org/tcc/ https://bellard.org/tcc/ [1]: https://repo.or.cz/tinycc.git https://repo.or.cz/tinycc.git [2]: https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/tinycc-devel/ https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/tinycc-devel/
siliconunit 4y ago
I'm quite confused, not the same project at all? To me tiny c compiler always meant the bellard page. Super useful stuff for micro hacky projects.
- Narishma 4y ago
  This is a compiler for a language called Tiny-C.
- hawski 4y ago
  One could say that the one from this submission is Tiny-C Compiler and Bellard's is Tiny C-Compiler.
- notorandit 4y ago
  I understand the confusion: it is more about "syntax associativity" (tiny C) compiler --> "This is a compiler for the Tiny-C language" vs Tiny (C compiler) --> "TinyCC [...] is a small but hyper fast C compiler" That's it! ;-)
  - moffkalast 4y ago
    Now obviously the next step is to make a tiny tiny c compiler compiler.
Laaas 4y ago
I use tcc for all of my small C "scripts" for doing ioctls, etc. Less bloat, suckless. I imagine most software would be better off using tcc than gcc/clang. Performance isn't that important in most cases.
- circuit10 4y ago
  I feel like a lot of software written in C is written in C for performance reasons. Obviously that’s not always the case and TCC is useful but I wouldn’t say that that most software should use it
  - t-3 4y ago
    C is usually the path of least resistance on *nix, if you're trying to interact with the OS. The docs give you C prototypes and C examples, and the source is mostly C, several standard directories are filled with C code and libraries compiled from C.
- doublepg23 4y ago
  > Performance isn't that important in most cases. Optimizing for storage space is…better?
  - vidarh 4y ago
    Since they say "scripts", note that tcc supports being invoked in the shebang line. E.g. #!/usr/bin/tcc -run You can do that with gcc/clang too (e.g. #if 0, #endif to wrap a block of shell script to compile the current file and execute the result) but a primary value of tcc is that it compiles fast. On a more philosophical note, the suckless approach is to optimise for simplicity not storage. It's perfectly valid to disagree with that of course, but if simplicitly of the system as a whole is a consideration gcc and clang doesn't really fit.
    - LukeShu 4y ago
      You can only sort of do that with gcc/clang. The #if 0 trick relies on funny behavior that is in a few common shells. When you try to execve(2) a script without a proper #! shebang, the kernel will return ENOEXEC. Bash will check for ENOEXEC then check a few heuristics to see if it looks like a text file, and if it does, then it will try to run it as a shell script. This means that your script will work when run from a shell, but won't work when exec()ed from a non-shell program, which is a weird foot-gun.

It is sad that tcc is unmaintained as it would be really useful in small embedded systems. I just tried it on Debian and compilation fails without #undefining CONFIG_TCC_MALLOC_HOOKS in lib/bcheck.c. After compilation it passes tests, but they warn that it could be unreliable.

jart 4y ago
Try chibicc. It's x86_64 native and so much more readable as a codebase than TCC.
dantrell 4y ago
While Fabrice Bellard is no longer working on TCC [0] and an official release tarball hasn't been packaged since version 0.9.27 (5 years ago) the project is by no means unmaintained. For details, check their current working repository [1] and mailing list [2]. [0]: https://bellard.org/tcc/ https://bellard.org/tcc/ [1]: https://repo.or.cz/tinycc.git https://repo.or.cz/tinycc.git [2]: https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/tinycc-devel/ https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/tinycc-devel/

siliconunit 4y ago

I'm quite confused, not the same project at all? To me tiny c compiler always meant the bellard page. Super useful stuff for micro hacky projects.

Narishma 4y ago
This is a compiler for a language called Tiny-C.
hawski 4y ago
One could say that the one from this submission is Tiny-C Compiler and Bellard's is Tiny C-Compiler.
notorandit 4y ago
I understand the confusion: it is more about "syntax associativity" (tiny C) compiler --> "This is a compiler for the Tiny-C language" vs Tiny (C compiler) --> "TinyCC [...] is a small but hyper fast C compiler" That's it! ;-)
- moffkalast 4y ago
  Now obviously the next step is to make a tiny tiny c compiler compiler.

Laaas 4y ago

I use tcc for all of my small C "scripts" for doing ioctls, etc. Less bloat, suckless. I imagine most software would be better off using tcc than gcc/clang. Performance isn't that important in most cases.

circuit10 4y ago
I feel like a lot of software written in C is written in C for performance reasons. Obviously that’s not always the case and TCC is useful but I wouldn’t say that that most software should use it
- t-3 4y ago
  C is usually the path of least resistance on *nix, if you're trying to interact with the OS. The docs give you C prototypes and C examples, and the source is mostly C, several standard directories are filled with C code and libraries compiled from C.
doublepg23 4y ago
> Performance isn't that important in most cases. Optimizing for storage space is…better?
- vidarh 4y ago
  Since they say "scripts", note that tcc supports being invoked in the shebang line. E.g. #!/usr/bin/tcc -run You can do that with gcc/clang too (e.g. #if 0, #endif to wrap a block of shell script to compile the current file and execute the result) but a primary value of tcc is that it compiles fast. On a more philosophical note, the suckless approach is to optimise for simplicity not storage. It's perfectly valid to disagree with that of course, but if simplicitly of the system as a whole is a consideration gcc and clang doesn't really fit.
  - LukeShu 4y ago
    You can only sort of do that with gcc/clang. The #if 0 trick relies on funny behavior that is in a few common shells. When you try to execve(2) a script without a proper #! shebang, the kernel will return ENOEXEC. Bash will check for ENOEXEC then check a few heuristics to see if it looks like a text file, and if it does, then it will try to run it as a shell script. This means that your script will work when run from a shell, but won't work when exec()ed from a non-shell program, which is a weird foot-gun.