便携式C编译器 [英] A Portable C Compiler
问题描述
http://slashdot.org/
更精简，更轻，更快，最重要的是，BSD许可，
编译器PCC已导入OpenBSD的CVS和NetBSD的pkgsrc。
编译器基于原始的便携式C编译器，由SC
Johnson编写，写于70年代后期。即使很多编译器已经重写了b / b $ b，但仍然存在一些基础知识。它目前不是没有错误的b $ b，但是它在x86平台上进行编译，并且正在进行工作
来承担GCC的工作。
PCC是我第一次使用和学习的C编译器，当时，当b / b $ b $ Unix和C开始在法国出现时。我们有源许可证，
并在那里浏览我找到了PCC代码。
讨论在这里。
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=artic ......模式=扩展/
有趣的是看到BSD人员的失望程度与GCC一起b
。他们只是想要一个简单，小巧的编译器......
支持Open BSD支持的所有架构。
他们会成功吗？
当然很容易有一个支持3个后端的编译器，比如说。
但支持10？
混合了奇怪的CPU等等？
无论如何，PCC应该胜任这项任务。我记得它在当时（80年代初）的霍尼韦尔 - 布尔计算机上运行，所以
应该在其他许多计算机上运行...运行那些是真的是一个
挑战。
9月17日下午2:53，jacob navia< ja ... @ jacob.remcomp.frwrote：
http：// slashdot。 org /
更精简，更轻，更快，最重要的是，BSD许可，
编译器PCC已导入OpenBSD'的CVS和NetBSD的pkgsrc。
编译器是基于SC的原始Portable C Compiler
Johnson，写于70年代后期。即使很多编译器已经重写了b / b $ b，但仍然存在一些基础知识。它目前不是没有错误的b $ b，但是它在x86平台上进行编译，并且正在进行工作
来承担GCC的工作。
PCC是我第一次使用和学习的C编译器，当时，当b / b $ b $ Unix和C开始在法国出现时。我们有源许可证，
并在那里浏览我找到了PCC代码。
讨论在这里。
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=artic ......模式=扩展/
有趣的是看到BSD人员的失望程度与GCC一起b
。他们只是想要一个简单，小巧的编译器......
支持Open BSD支持的所有架构。
他们会成功吗？
当然很容易有一个支持3个后端的编译器，比如说。
但支持10？
混合了奇怪的CPU等等？
无论如何，PCC应该胜任这项任务。我记得它在当时（80年代初）的霍尼韦尔 - 布尔计算机上运行，所以
应该在其他许多计算机上运行...运行那些是真的是一个
的挑战。
从PCC开始并尝试与GCC竞争就像从
a dingy开始并计划参加65英尺游艇比赛。 />
我想：
http：/ /www.tendra.org/about/
有更好的成功机会。
其他尝试：
http://www.thefreecountry.com/compilers/cpp.shtml
user923005< dc ***** @ connx.comwrote：
9月17日下午2:53，jacob navia< ja ... @ jacob.remcomp.frwrote：
> http://slashdot.org/
更瘦，更轻，更快，最重要的是，BSD许可，
编译器PCC已导入O. penBSD的CVS和NetBSD的pkgsrc。
编译器基于S. C.
Johnson的原始Portable C Compiler，写于70年代后期。尽管大部分编译器已经被重写，但仍然存在一些基础知识。它目前不是没有错误的，但它在x86平台上进行编译，正在进行工作以承担GCC的工作。
PCC是我第一次使用和研究的C编译器，当时Unix和C开始出现在法国。我们有源许可证，
并在那里浏览我找到了PCC代码。
讨论在这里。
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=artic...mode=expanded/
有趣的是看到BSD人员对GCC的沮丧程度。他们只是想要一个简单，小巧的编译器......
支持Open BSD支持的所有架构。
它们会成功吗？
当然它很容易有一个支持3个后端的编译器，比如说。
但支持10？
混合了奇怪的CPU等等？
无论如何PCC应该完成任务。我记得它在当时的Honeywell-Bull计算机上运行（80年代初），所以
应该在很多其他计算机上运行......与它们一起运行真的是一个挑战。
从PCC开始并尝试与GCC竞争就像是开始使用
一个肮脏的并计划参加一场65英尺的游艇比赛。
这取决于你试图竞争的方式。确实，它似乎不太可能PCC能够在不久的将来随时产生与GCC一样好的代码
。另一方面，
与GCC竞争关于
编译器所需的编译时间和内存使用情况应该不是很困难（GCC不是很常见的区域）好的。）
对于那些试图在旧机器上进行开发的人来说，这些功能可能比生成的代码运行速度快0.5％更多。。 br />
其他人会有其他优先事项。
>
我想：
http://www.tendra.org/about/
有更好的成功机会。
其他尝试：
http://www.thefreecountry.com/compilers/cpp.shtml
-
<在这里插入你最喜欢的报价。>
Erik Trulsson
er ****** @ student.uu.se
Erik Trulsson写道：
这取决于你试图竞争的方式。确实，在不久的将来，PCC似乎不太可能在任何时候产生与GCC
一样好的代码。 ？*另一方面，在编译时间和内存方面难以与GCC竞争很难
编译器所需的
使用率（GCC所在的区域）不太好。）
编译时间和内存使用等属性仅与
编译过程相关，这是一个非常小的整个软件的一部分
制作过程。至于编译器和
编译器的预期，这些功能可能会很好，但它们非常重要。
很重要。事实上，它们完全无关紧要。
没有一个心智正常的人会喜欢一个较轻的编译器，它会生成一个弱的或
的错误代码轻巧，但产生强大，紧凑，甚至
安全代码。
对于尝试在旧机器上进行开发的人来说这些功能
比生成的代码运行速度快0.5％还要多。
在这个时代，任何人都可以以低于300欧元的价格购买具有
多核处理器的非常强大的系统。也可以购买几乎没有用过的系统。坦率地说，我不相信构建时间
已经存在或者已经有一段时间了。
其他人会有其他重点。
我不相信任何开发人员都会愿意为更快捷的构建过程交换质量的b
代码。当然这是一个不错的功能但是
绝对没有办法认真考虑任何
权衡。
Rui Maciel
http://slashdot.org/
"The leaner, lighter, faster, and most importantly, BSD Licensed,
Compiler PCC has been imported into OpenBSD''s CVS and NetBSD''s pkgsrc.
The compiler is based on the original Portable C Compiler by S. C.
Johnson, written in the late 70''s. Even though much of the compiler has
been rewritten, some of the basics still remain. It is currently not
bug-free, but it compiles on x86 platform, and work is being done on it
to take on GCC''s job."
The PCC was the first C compiler I used and studied, back then, when
Unix and C started appearing here in France. We had a source license,
and browsing there I found the PCC code.
The discussion is here.
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=artic...mode=expanded/
It is interesting to see the level of frustration of the BSD people
with GCC. They just want a compiler that is simple, small, and...
supports all architectures that Open BSD supports.
Will they succeed?
Of course it is easy to have a compiler that supports 3 back ends, say.
But supporting 10?
With a mixture of weird CPUs etc?
In any case PCC should be up to the task. I remember it run in the
Honeywell-Bull computers of that time (beginning of the 80s), so
it should run in many others... Running with those was really a
challenge.
On Sep 17, 2:53 pm, jacob navia <ja...@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:http://slashdot.org/
"The leaner, lighter, faster, and most importantly, BSD Licensed,
Compiler PCC has been imported into OpenBSD''s CVS and NetBSD''s pkgsrc.
The compiler is based on the original Portable C Compiler by S. C.
Johnson, written in the late 70''s. Even though much of the compiler has
been rewritten, some of the basics still remain. It is currently not
bug-free, but it compiles on x86 platform, and work is being done on it
to take on GCC''s job."
The PCC was the first C compiler I used and studied, back then, when
Unix and C started appearing here in France. We had a source license,
and browsing there I found the PCC code.
The discussion is here.
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=artic...mode=expanded/
It is interesting to see the level of frustration of the BSD people
with GCC. They just want a compiler that is simple, small, and...
supports all architectures that Open BSD supports.
Will they succeed?
Of course it is easy to have a compiler that supports 3 back ends, say.
But supporting 10?
With a mixture of weird CPUs etc?
In any case PCC should be up to the task. I remember it run in the
Honeywell-Bull computers of that time (beginning of the 80s), so
it should run in many others... Running with those was really a
challenge.Starting with PCC and trying to compete with GCC is like starting with
a dingy and planning to race a 65'' yacht.
I guess that :
http://www.tendra.org/about/
has a much better chance to succeed.
Other attempts:
http://www.thefreecountry.com/compilers/cpp.shtml
user923005 <dc*****@connx.comwrote:On Sep 17, 2:53 pm, jacob navia <ja...@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:>http://slashdot.org/
"The leaner, lighter, faster, and most importantly, BSD Licensed,
Compiler PCC has been imported into OpenBSD''s CVS and NetBSD''s pkgsrc.
The compiler is based on the original Portable C Compiler by S. C.
Johnson, written in the late 70''s. Even though much of the compiler has
been rewritten, some of the basics still remain. It is currently not
bug-free, but it compiles on x86 platform, and work is being done on it
to take on GCC''s job."
The PCC was the first C compiler I used and studied, back then, when
Unix and C started appearing here in France. We had a source license,
and browsing there I found the PCC code.
The discussion is here.
http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=artic...mode=expanded/
It is interesting to see the level of frustration of the BSD people
with GCC. They just want a compiler that is simple, small, and...
supports all architectures that Open BSD supports.
Will they succeed?
Of course it is easy to have a compiler that supports 3 back ends, say.
But supporting 10?
With a mixture of weird CPUs etc?
In any case PCC should be up to the task. I remember it run in the
Honeywell-Bull computers of that time (beginning of the 80s), so
it should run in many others... Running with those was really a
challenge.
Starting with PCC and trying to compete with GCC is like starting with
a dingy and planning to race a 65'' yacht.That depends on in what manner you are trying to compete. It is true that it
seems unlikely that PCC will be able to generate as good code as GCC anytime
in the near future. On the other hand it should not be very difficult to
compete with GCC with regards to compile time and memory usage needed by the
compiler (areas in which GCC is not very good.)
For people trying to do development on older machines these features can be worth
much more than having the generated code run 0.5% faster.
Other people will have other priorities.
>
I guess that :
http://www.tendra.org/about/
has a much better chance to succeed.
Other attempts:
http://www.thefreecountry.com/compilers/cpp.shtml
--
<Insert your favourite quote here.>
Erik Trulsson
er******@student.uu.se
Erik Trulsson wrote:
That depends on in what manner you are trying to compete. It is true that
it seems unlikely that PCC will be able to generate as good code as GCC
anytime in the near future. ?*On the other hand it should not be very
difficult to compete with GCC with regards to compile time and memory
usage needed by the compiler (areas in which GCC is not very good.)Properties such as compile time and memory usage are only relevant to the
compilation process, which is a very tiny part of the whole software
production process. As far as compilers go and what is expected from the
compiler, those features may be nice to have but they are very far from
being important. In fact, they are totally irrelevant.
No one in their right mind prefers a lighter compiler that produces weak or
buggy code to one which is not so light but produces strong, tight and even
secure code.
For people trying to do development on older machines these features can
be worth much more than having the generated code run 0.5% faster.In this day and age anyone can purchase a very capable system with
multi-core processors for less than 300 euros. It is also possible to buy
used systems for almost nothing. Frankly, I don''t believe that build times
are an issue anymore or have been for some time.
Other people will have other priorities.I don''t believe that any developer will ever be willing to trade quality
code for a snappier build process. Naturally it is a nice feature but there
is absolutely no way it would ever be seriously considered for any
tradeoff.
Rui Maciel
这篇关于便携式C编译器的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！
