Re: [Tinycc-devel] TCC as portable module compiler

[Kenneth Forsbäck]

Doesn't TCC output optimized x86 code? Or do you mean any additional
optimisation...?

Cameron Villers wrote:
> TCC doesn't really do much (if at all) in the way of code optimization.
> 
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Kenneth Forsbäck
> <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>  I am currently working on a game written in C and aimed primarily at the
>>  Linux and Windows platforms.
>>
>>  I have been designing a generic module (plugin) system for my game, and
>>  focused on making it scripted - or partially scripted - however, it
>>  turned out to be too inefficient and difficult to implement. Intepreted
>>  code is no longer an option.
>>
>>  Therefor I have decided to use TCC as a module compiler, which would be
>>  packaged along with the game.
>>
>>  Modules for my game would usually be quite small, but being generic it
>>  also allows the user to implement entire conversions, which could result
>>  in quite a large module. Regarding the small modules I have no doubts,
>>  however, would there be any significant difference in performance
>>  between TCC and GCC (or any other major compiler, e.g. BCC, LCC)
>>  generated object code for larger modules? Do I have anything to worry
>>  about, or am I just being silly?
>>
>>  I am not that well versed in the interals of TCC and how well it fares
>>  against competing software, TCC is my favourite compiler due to its
>>  compact and minimal design, no clutter, no mess...as opposed to GCC. I
>>  would rather use TCC over the GNU GCC mess anytime. Bring it on!
>>
>>  TCC would make it very easy, even for less experienced programmers, to
>>  write efficient, yet portable modules for my game, and without all the
>>  hassle of GCC tools. TCC is mainly an Intel-based compiler, however, I
>>  doubt there is any significant portion of gaming rigs running on
>>  non-Intel architecture, so currently this is not a problem. There are
>>  already two other targets for TCC (ARM and PPC?), so I am sure
>>  additional targets would be possible in the future.
>>
>>  ~ Kenneth Forsbäck
>>
>>
>>
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Tinycc-devel mailing list
>>  address@hidden
>>  http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
>>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tinycc-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
>