From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-8BFDAB5F-AD24-4263-9260-119BAA0DCEE8 MIME-version: 1.0 (1.0) From: Brantley Coile In-reply-to: Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 11:41:50 -0400 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Message-id: <97ECED3C-853F-482C-A098-E60245EF347A@me.com> References: <201503112030.t2BKU71p008530@skeeve.com>

To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] ken cc for linux Topicbox-Message-UUID: 4951a06a-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --Apple-Mail-8BFDAB5F-AD24-4263-9260-119BAA0DCEE8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks Charles. I agree completely and will add that they will pry Ken's co= mpilers, so wonderfully supported by you, from my cold, dead fingers. South= Suite's new kernel will always be compiled with 6c. As far as performance g= oes, to paraphrase Chuck Yeager, it's not the compiler, it's the coder. I'd= rather have brilliant coders than idiot savant compilers. =20 bwc iPhone email > On Mar 12, 2015, at 11:23 AM, Charles Forsyth w= rote: >=20 >=20 >> On 12 March 2015 at 10:06, Charles Forsyth wr= ote: >> I've used it and lib9 in several other projects where other compilers >> couldn't be used for licensing reasons, or because they were awful. >=20 > I'll add that the compilers are great for kernel and other New World syste= ms work. > Once stable on a given platform, they've been quite robust (I never suspec= t them at the start as a bug cause). > Code quality is rarely a bottleneck for systems work in my experience > (and there's a good reason that removing -O3 is a way to fix bugs with oth= er compilers). > If I were writing scientific computation, I wouldn't use C anyway, but if I= did, I'd worry > much more about the effectiveness of optimisation. For systems work? It's r= eally, really low on the list. > The cross-module type checking has also spotted a few things that every ot= her compiler missed. >=20 > Cross-compilation is easy and precise, with next to no configuration requi= red, > unlike nearly all the others; I rely on that a lot. It's worth the price o= f entry for that alone, for me, > having suffered with gcc on an old OS project of mine; I'd never use it ag= ain for anything new. > (Obviously I still use gcc for the 8 hour[!] Linux kernel compiles and bui= lds.) >=20 > lcc used to include all the code generators, so I suppose that would be ju= st as good, except > that it spits out assembly and you have to rely on external components, wh= ich still leaves you cross when attempting > to cross-compile. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 --Apple-Mail-8BFDAB5F-AD24-4263-9260-119BAA0DCEE8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks Charles. I agree complete= ly and will add that they will pry Ken's compilers, so wonderfully supported= by you, from my cold, dead fingers. South Suite's new kernel will alw= ays be compiled with 6c. As far as performance goes, to paraphrase Chu= ck Yeager, it's not the compiler, it's the coder. I'd rather have bril= liant coders than idiot savant compilers.

bwc
iPhone email<= /div>

On Mar 12, 2015, at 11:23 AM, Charles Forsyth <charles.forsyth@gmail.com> wrote:

On 12 March 2015 at 10:06, Charles = Forsyth <charles.forsyth@gmail.com> wrote:
I've used it and lib9 in several other pro= jects where other compilers
couldn't be u= sed for licensing reasons, or because they were awful.

I'll add that the compilers are grea= t for kernel and other New World systems work.

Once stable on a given platform, they've been quite robust (I never suspe= ct them at the start as a bug cause).

Code quality is rarely a bottleneck for systems work in= my experience

(and there's a good reason th= at removing -O3 is a way to fix bugs with other compilers).

If I were writing scientific computation, I wouldn't use C any= way, but if I did, I'd worry

much more about= the effectiveness of optimisation. For systems work? It's really, really lo= w on the list.

Th= e cross-module type checking has also spotted a few things that every other c= ompiler missed.

C= ross-compilation is easy and precise, with next to no configuration required= ,

unlike nearly all the others; I rely on th= at a lot. It's worth the price of entry for that alone, for me,

having suffered with gcc on an old OS project of mine; I= 'd never use it again for anything new.

(Obv= iously I still use gcc for the 8 hour[!] Linux kernel compiles and builds.)<= /div>

lcc used to include all the c= ode generators, so I suppose that would be just as good, except

that it spits out assembly and you have to rely on exter= nal components, which still leaves you cross when attempting

to cross-compile.

= --Apple-Mail-8BFDAB5F-AD24-4263-9260-119BAA0DCEE8--