| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| PCC Compiler Version 1.0 Released |
| By special contributor lucas_maximus on 2011-04-12 23:37:16 |
| No April Foolery: The Portable C Compiler version 1.0 was released on April 1st! As with so many things BSD, this project proves that good code is timeless and can benefit from literally generations of review. It can build the majority of the BSD base systems (C++ code aside) and is undergoing continuous improvement. |
|
| Comment by Brynet |
| By Brynet on 2011-04-12 23:39:10 |
| I noticed it was in the queue on April 1st, guess they thought it was a joke. |
 - Score: 1 |
| 3 decades to reach 1.0 version |
| By tylerdurden on 2011-04-13 01:12:18 |
|
impressive J/K |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE: 3 decades to reach 1.0 version |
| By Jondice on 2011-04-13 02:48:51 |
|
This comment reminds me of how different the Chrome browser feels going from Beta to version 10. J/K |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE: 3 decades to reach 1.0 version |
| By Brynet on 2011-04-13 05:21:53 |
| The version numbers simply weren't bumped, that doesn't say it isn't a good compiler.. it was hacked on for many years by many people, not made to impress the masses. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE: Comment by Brynet |
| By lucas_maximus on 2011-04-13 08:38:53 |
|
I wasn't sure at first either ... but after checking it out it turns out it was. Looks like a nice compiler. |
| - Score: 2 |
| C++ |
| By Earl Colby pottinger on 2011-04-13 12:42:57 |
|
C++ just needs a pre-processor program? Right? Would they use one already written, or are they developing that too? |
| - Score: 2 |
| About the 1.0 |
| By madcrow on 2011-04-13 15:19:46 |
|
The version number is version 1.0 of the modern revival. The original versions were more tied to the version of Unix that they shipped with than anything else. Anyway, I don't really see the point of this. Yes it's small and portable and runs quickly, but it can't really compare to the output quality of GCC or Clang/LLVM. The idea of a compiler that runs superfast but makes slower binaries seems a bit odd. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: About the 1.0 |
| By broken_symlink on 2011-04-13 16:01:28 |
| I think the point is the license. Its not GPL. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE: About the 1.0 |
| By lucas_maximus on 2011-04-13 16:03:47 |
|
Not really, if you understand the motivations. The whole point is that when building releases for testing on older architectures such as SPARC (not SPARC64), the devs can compile the tree quicker ... thus they can bug fix, test improvements etc quicker. Yes my Core 2 can compile the whole thing in about 20 minutes ... but it is for the older slower machines which are supported. |
| - Score: 3 |
| RE: C++ |
| By reduz on 2011-04-13 16:11:49 |
|
that's something that always intrigued me.. there are many C++ compilers, but all just compile down to intermediate code, not C. Given the difficulty of making a C++ compiler, i'm surprised that there isn't a "generic" C++ -> C frontend that can be used with the plenty of C compilers available. |
| - Score: 2 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |