and fastest C compilerhttps://desuarchive.org/g/thread/108690362https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/109452823
>it disables segfaultswhat?
>>109461691https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/108690362https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/109452823
>>109461684tricky graph that confuses people, its essentially only the "fastest" on obsolete hardware as modern compilers are optimized for modern hardware vs ancient hardware
>>109461702tcc 10x faster everywhere
>>109461699what the fuck do you mean it disables segfaultssegfaults are a feature of the kernel not the compiler, you do understand this, right?
>>109461684>yawns in nimNobody cares, C++ / C are dead lingos
>>109461748and?
>disables segfaultsSCHIZOTHREAD DO ENGAGE
>>109461785
>>109461809explanation:https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/108690362https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/109452823
>>109461755Good morning saar
>>109461702That's definitely not true. tcc is fast because it performs no optimizations. Even if you pass -O it will implement only a small subset of the optimizations one might find in the homework of a compiler 101 class. It also has a dedicated single-pass mode mostly intended for use with -run. gcc performs a minimum of 900 passes (last I checked, over 10 years ago, probably much worse now) before it even starts actually compiling code.
>>109461979>it performs no optimizationsThat is incidentally the reason it disables segfaults as well. UB is very unlikely to crash if the compiler doesn't actually optimize on the assumptions you've erroneously validated or invalidated.
tcc is fast because it fast
>>109461702>Confuses run time with compile timeAnon...
also this:https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/106861974https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/106843778https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/106554716https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/106015802https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/106375037https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/105155906https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/109303943https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/109303986
>>109461684>>109461748>>109461691Contrary to popular belief standards complaint C *can* be bounds checked but no one does because the UB is unintuitive.Except TCC which optionally supports it. Hence no segfaults.
>>109463260In GCC, this is just _GLIBCXX_DEBUG or _FORTIFY_SOURCE, depending on your usecase.
>>109463681no one use it for a reason
>>109461684>>109461699>>109461835Sorry anon, I don't think anybody is going to read all those archived threads you're linking. I love tcc too, I love to see others using it, I've even contributed to it before (to the or.cz mob repo, that is). If I'm not willing to click through and read all that shit then nobody else is.If there's some specific info in them that you want people to notice, why not post screenshots...
>>109463681>FORTIFY_SOURCE,>__builtin_dynamic_object_sizeGod damn the future just keeps getting more bright.
>>109463828>I'mopinion discarded
>>109463160
>>109461684>it disables segfaultsthat's not a good thing
>>109465676explanation:https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/108690362https://desuarchive.org/g/thread/109452823
they are in the walls i swear
you should stop posting these memes desus.there was a teenager the other week who thought this was for real and actually submitted feature requests for using tcc in some real projects.my metaphorical tears of sadness while scolding him and slapping him back into reality felt like crocodile ones.
>>109467071ok boomer
>>109464678>>I'mwhat, did you expect him to call himself a xhe or whatever?
