Headers including headers and precompilation

[Bernhard Fischer]

On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 05:44:04PM -0500, Rich Felker wrote:
>On Sat, Apr 01, 2006 at 12:15:09AM +0200, Bernhard Fischer wrote:
>> >> Yeah, that it was designed on a 16-bit machine in 1971.  Back then the entire 
>> >> system had 64k of ram, only the first 6 characters of each identifier were 
>> >> significant...
>> >> 
>> >> You are aware of the new build-at-once mode, right?
>> >
>> >I find it utterly hypocritical that someone working on a project that
>> >replaces huge bloated crap with small efficient implementations is
>> >advocating that we should all need huge systems with lots of resources
>> 
>> It's optional. Noone forces you to use it.
>
>I wasn't talking about build-at-once, rather the general disregard for
>supporting nonbloated build systems.
>
>> >to be able to compile anything... Just because busybox doesn't include
>> >a C compiler (yet ;) doesn't mean it's justified to require massive
>> >gcc bloatware.
>> 
>> IMA/IPO/IPA/you-name-it is not only available in gcc but also in
>> commercial "bloatware".
>> 
>> Also, as it stands, you can only build defconfig (i.e. all applets) with
>> a C99 compiler. What's the smallest somewhat C99 compliant compiler
>> which is free?
>
>tinycc:
>
>$ size tcc
>   text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
> 109202     588   42624  152414   2535e tcc

$ size tcc
   text	   data	    bss	    dec	    hex	filename
  96423	    608	  42620	 139651	  22183	tcc

only slightly tweaked, there is still some room for improvement,
size-wise.

As you correctly note, tcc is missing some important C99 features, so
it's just not (yet) an alternative for C99 code.
>
>It's missing some important C99 features and has no optimization, but
>it's an interesting potential starting point. ACK is another
>interesting one, but no C99 whatsoever, only C89. IMO it would need a
>good bit of work to get up to C99, but it seems to have a much better
>design than tinycc.

Well, tcc is a bit unintuitive, agree ;)