Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by msclrhd | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

msclrhd

What about the Tiny C Compiler (TCC) that Fabrice Bellard wrote? https://bellard.org/tcc/

View on HN

https://bellard.org/otcc/

it not tiny anymore :-)

Could I ask you what do you mean by that?

The referenced compilers are a different level of tiny, like 500 lines of tiny. :)

Ah, I see. tcc is still tiny compared to clang and gcc though :-)

Not sure what the parent means by it, but here is lines of code data generated using David A. Wheeler's 'SLOCCount'.

    SLOC Directory SLOC-by-Language (Sorted)
    36270   top_dir         ansic=35504,sh=460,perl=306
    28825   win32           ansic=28716,asm=109
    9692    tests           ansic=8806,asm=858,sh=28
    2395    lib             ansic=2252,asm=143
    158     include         ansic=158
    140     examples        ansic=140


    Totals grouped by language (dominant language first):
    ansic:        75576 (97.54%)
    asm:           1110 (1.43%)
    sh:             488 (0.63%)
    perl:           306 (0.39%)

As far as I can tell, the top-level directory is the actual compiler itself. 35k lines is pretty small for a real C compiler that can bootstrap GCC (the versions that were still written in pure C).

What I mean is what I said :-) 70k is not tiny. And one cannot just throw away a backend and say that it's not part of the compiler.

Compare it with a few others:

8cc/9cc - 10K LOC cproc - 7K LOC lcc - 30K LOC

> And one cannot just throw away a backend and say that it's not part of the compiler.

OK. Let me rephrase: TCC doesn't have 35k lines of code, but with five minutes' work it could be turned into a compiler with 35k lines of code capable of bootstrapping GCC on Linux. That should be enough to compare it to the ones you list.

That's an interesting way to put it. :-D I believe we could do that to a lot of other compilers, say, lcc (30k) with its multiple backends and get something like 10-20k.

Anyways, what I was trying to say is that "tiny" in "tinycc" has lost its meaning already.

cproc is not 7K self-contained either; from the GitHub page: "cproc is a C11 compiler using QBE as a backend".

that's correct. But even if you add qbe you only get 12k more, or about 20k, not 70k.

I wonder if anybody ported tcc-linux

Reply on news.ycombinator.com