Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/g/ - Technology


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 336 KB, 1920x1080, A C.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
66936762 No.66936762 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe] [rbt]

which is the best compiler for C?

>> No.66936831
File: 636 KB, 1920x1441, 1920px-LLVM_Logo.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
66936831

clang

>> No.66936923

>>66936762
gcc

>> No.66936994

g++

>> No.66937003

tcc

>> No.66937012

>>66936831
^ this

>> No.66937014

>>66936762
How do I get this kind of coding theme?

>> No.66937029

>>66936762
GCC

>> No.66937035

its a little not-so-secret industry secret that the intel compiler is probably one of the best out there. But it's just so expensive

>> No.66937036

Intel C compiler. (btw I hate incel)

>> No.66937044

>>66936762
Clang, except the shitty Apple custom XCode Developer Tools version, which lacks support for OpenMP

>> No.66937078

pretty much every final build for a lot of games out there use the intel compiler

>> No.66937108

>>66936762
ICC unironically

>> No.66937117

>>66936762
That picture is completely wrong.

>> No.66937186

>>66936831
fpbp

>> No.66937325

>he hasn't written his own compiler
CIA niggers fuck off

>> No.66938857
File: 26 KB, 273x302, tfw you wouldn't believe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
66938857

>>66937003
Deprecated. There is no good C compiler anymore.

>> No.66940053

>>66938857
While the website is dead it appears to be actively worked on?
http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git

>> No.66940365

>>66936762
Depends what are you doing. If it's mostly a windows thing, they vc++. if it's a multiplatform pc thing then gcc, if it's some embedded shit, most likely you will end up gcc or some weird shit only 10 people in the world know how to use. There is not absolute answer to that question.

>> No.66940658

>>66936762
GCC, but Clang will probably surpass it sooner or later since everyone is moving to it because it's newer, trendier, and doesn't have two decades of accumulated bullshit.

>> No.66940916

>>66940658
I've noticed the speed difference (around .100 of a second on a around 1000 lines with ncurses) but I'm loyal to gcc.

>> No.66941942

>>66937035
>>66937036
Intel compiler purposely gimps performance on non-intel CPUs. Just stick with GCC or Clang.

>> No.66942005

>>66936762
None, you should be switching to a better and safer language like Rust.

>> No.66942006

>>66940053
If they can get the last few developers to agree to a license change or replace their code the TinyCC compiler will become MIT licensed. I'd love to be able to use a NetBSD or OpenBSD build with no GPL or C++ code in the base install.

>> No.66942112

>>66941942
You can spin it that way if your an AMD fag but the truth is that the compiler just didn't support optimizations on the AMD chips so it didn't know to turn them on.

Basically you could say that AMD had no drivers.

>> No.66942138

>>66942112
GCC basically change default settings for each processor optimizations so if there are the good option aviable on Intel compiler it should be possible to finetune to amd

>> No.66942183

>>66942006
OpenBSD dropped GCC for LLVM a few versions ago

>> No.66942185
File: 102 KB, 1280x720, br.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
66942185

>>66942138
I can try to guess what you are saying but I'm pretty sure you are just stating obvious shit for no reason other than to reply.

>> No.66943381

Clang, for sure. It comes with OpenBSD and FreeBSD as the default compiler, too.

>> No.66943447

>>66937036
>>66937108
are there some icc-specific features to be aware of? is it just a well optimizing compiler for intel cpus with nothing else to offer?

>> No.66943635

>>66936831
This

>> No.66943765

gcc consistently makes like 10% faster binaries, but clang has nicer tools

>> No.66943809

>>66937003
>doesn't support C11 atomics
>doesn't support gcc vector extension
tcc is shit

>> No.66943874

>>66943809
>>doesn't support C11 atomics
just use inline assembly or make a few wrapper functions

>> No.66943903

>>66943874
>dude just do some shitty hack because compiler devs can't implement standard feature
No.

>> No.66943920

>>66943903
It'll be 20 lines of code at most and from the on just a single include. Perhaps you are just too retarded to use C.

>> No.66944070
File: 1.47 MB, 660x582, 1524958910192.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
66944070

>>66943920
>it's just a 20 LOC shitty hack in a single file!
>muh assembly
You would have loved pre-77 Fortran, where all memory is allocated on a single common block and then accessed by boundary violations.

>> No.66944312

>>66936762
how to get this clean font rendering

>> No.66944827

tcc

>> No.66945736

Gcc or
C-->assembly-->machine code all of the steps by hand

>> No.66946598

>>66942112
No the Intel Compiler actually purposely ignores the fact that other CPUs support SSE instructions to slow them down. The FTC even made them post this warning about it: https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/optimization-notice

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action