This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Strange question
- From: Daniel Egger <degger at fhm dot edu>
- To: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gnu dot org
- Date: 05 Feb 2002 12:19:03 +0100
- Subject: Re: Strange question
- References: <200202032244.RAA26558@makai.watson.ibm.com>
Am Son, 2002-02-03 um 23.44 schrieb David Edelsohn:
> It all depends on what you mean by "workable". In Matt Dillon's
> interview on KernelTrap, he mentioned that it took him two weeks to write
> the initial version of his DICE C Compiler which could compile 'hello
> world', but many months to refine it into what one would consider a
> "commercial quality" compiler. His compiler only produced 68000 code and
> had nothing close to the optimizations in GCC.
Well, DICE C was a compiler but far away from "commercial quality". It
failed to compile anything but pretty trivial examples and lacked the
functionality to use OS headers other than those delivered with DICE
which means that I wasn't even able address all functions of the OS.
So depending on the project the new compiler should be able to handle
(and maybe even optimisation is wanted) the team should rather use
a different compiler to base their estimation on. I still have
difficulties why someone would want to start a new compiler project
with a few man nowadays when "commercial quality" code like gcc is for
free.
--
Servus,
Daniel