[TUHS] Off topic: Does anyone know what's going on with the PCC Revived project?

[Luther Johnson]

Besides which x86 or other machine models you want, and how much of 
which sort of optimization is enough, the other challenge is which C 
language variant, exactly, you want. Simple C compilers that do one 
thing well, often, well, do just one of these things.

On 05/25/2025 04:46 PM, Bakul Shah via TUHS wrote:
> In May 23, 2025, at 5:45 AM, Steve Nickolas <usotsuki at buric.co> wrote:
>> On Fri, 23 May 2025, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
>>
>>> It is *such* a pity!  I said similar sad words just two days ago
>>> when shortly touching linux-man at .  That we lost (i only track your
>>> git mirror of) it, and are left with only gigabyte monsters that
>>> go universes beyond Ken Thompson's "reasonable optimizations"
>>> (iirc), and tcc (luckily this we have).  Here the built gcc ball
>>> is 243 times larger than tcc's, and clang is 284 times larger
>>> even!
>> I wish I had any idea what I was doing when it came to language interpreters and compilers... These swiss-army-nukes epitomize "no kill like overkill", but I prefer small, single-purpose tools.
>>
>> A new lightweight C compiler with a focus on various varieties of x86 is something I think would be useful and would do if I had any idea how to go about it.
> There are a number of such efforts. Apart from the ones
> already mentioned, there are at least
>    https://git.sr.ht/~mcf/cproc & https://www.simple-cc.org/
> May be you can help them out....
>
> The difficulty is in maintaining such compilers, standard
> compliance, complete toolchains for supported platforms, other
> support programs, dealing with platform changes etc.
>
> Machines are fast enough (for me) and I would love it if I
> can compile the (FreeBSD) kernel + most of the userland using
> a fast & simple compiler but that is just not possible as
> some compiler specific dependencies have slowly crept in
> standard header files.
>
>