This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: source mgt. requirements solicitation
- From: Bruce Stephens <bruce at cenderis dot demon dot co dot uk>
- To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds at transmeta dot com>
- Cc: Pop Sébastian <pop at gauvain dot u-strasbg dot fr>,Momchil Velikov <velco at fadata dot bg>, <zack at codesourcery dot com>,<gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 00:29:36 +0000
- Subject: Re: source mgt. requirements solicitation
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0212151533030.2445-100000@home.transmeta.com>
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com> writes:
[...]
> That is obviously also why the kernel ends up being a lot of lines of
> code. I think it's about an order of magnitude bigger in size than all of
> gcc - not because it is an order of magnitude more complex, obviously, but
> simply because it has many more parts to it. And that directly translates
> to more pieces that people can cut their teeth on.
The gcc tree I have seems to have 4145483 lines, whereas the 2.4.20
kernel seems to have 4841227 lines. (Not lines of code; this includes
all files in the unbuilt tree (including CVS directories for gcc,
although this is probably trivial), and it includes comments and files
which are not code. In the gcc case, it may include some generated
files; I'm not sure how Ada builds nowadays.)
Excluding the gcc testsuites, gcc has 3848080 lines. So gcc (the
whole of gcc, with all its languages) seems to be a bit smaller than
the kernel, but probably not by an order of magnitude.
This is reenforced by "du -s": the gcc tree takes up 187144K, the
kernel takes up 170676K. None of this is particularly precise,
obviously, but it points to the two projects (with all their combined
bits) being not too dissimilar in size. Which is a possibly
interesting coincidence. (The 2.5 kernel may be much bigger; I
haven't looked. The tarballs don't look *that* much bigger, however.)
[...]