2 ms·
Yep, that's why you would have had a "fixed-C" compiler with an explicit u24 and "portability", if it has any meaning here, would have to be done at the user pr
by sylware 4y ago
Yep, that's why you would have had a "fixed-C" compiler with an explicit u24 and "portability", if it has any meaning here, would have to be done at the user program level.
The C committee is just adding stuff, to make even a naive C compiler more and more costly, which kills many "real life" alternatives, and in the end, does promote planned obsolescence more than anything else.
We have to remove stuff from C, not add stuff to C, make things more explicit and not more implicit (the abomination of the integer promotion...).
The stdlib has nothing to do in the C syntax even though not having memcpy and co internal to the compiler feels really meh on modern CPU.
- peterfirefly 4y agoMost of the C related cost of a new* compiler seems to come from declarations (they are a lot nastier to figure out than they look) and the preprocessor. The rest of the language doesn't seem to be that expensive to implement. And then there is the other stuff: calling conventions, per-CPU code generator, general IR optimizations. This can be very cheap if we accept poor quality of the generated code. --- Edit: I inserted the word 'new'.