Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: PCC: Portable C Compiler Isn't Quick To Advance

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,294

    Default PCC: Portable C Compiler Isn't Quick To Advance

    Phoronix: PCC: Portable C Compiler Isn't Quick To Advance

    The Portable C Compiler 1.0 was released in April of 2011, but since then there hasn't been many updates out of this open-source compiler that was originally spawned in the late 1970's...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTEzMjY

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Ghent
    Posts
    204

    Default

    I think waiting for C++ support is missing the point. PCC is a C compiler.

    Actually I am impressed of its performance considering that its competitors are backed by such a huge body of developers. PCC can already build Open- and FreeBSD so it is definitely capable. If only someone could crack this challenge

    http://bsdfund.org/bundle/

    things could get interesting

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    near Seattle, WA
    Posts
    9

    Default

    If memory serves, there were two main reasons for the interest in resurrecting PCC:

    - A general interest in heirloom code, whether because of simple nostalgia or because such code is believed to be simpler and thus more minimalist. As far as I know, PCC is satisfying this interest quite well enough already.

    - The BSD projects' distaste for GPLv3 had them looking for alternatives to GCC. PCC was briefly considered, but eventually lost out to Clang/LLVM because that project was much further along in meeting the needs of most current software.

  4. #4

    Default

    I wrote a patch a month or two ago to enable PCC to build with Clang, but I forgot to upstream it. I will send that upstream today. Thanks for the reminder.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by staalmannen View Post
    Actually I am impressed of its performance considering that its competitors are backed by such a huge body of developers.
    Yes I was also surprised, particularly seeing it beating Clang/LLVM. However there were no compiler options listed here which means it could be no optimizations set at all, that and this being only one test (and a synthetic benchmark at that) makes it rather impossible to draw any conclusions from this.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •