About a week ago, I downloaded Jacob's lcc package to my new (to me)
Win/XP box and gave it a test drive this morning. The application
program reads my web server's log file (currently about 35MB) and
reduces it to a bunch of lists, then outputs the log contents arranged
by each requestor's chronological list of hits. It's not really a
strenuous test, but there's plenty of opportunity to screw up multiple
levels of indirection, etc.

The program was originally written on a Linux system and compiled/linked
using the gcc toolchain.

With the "pedantic" option it warned (8 times) about "Assignment within
a conditional expression" but was otherwise friendly. The executable was
some larger than I recollected the gcc version had been, but shrank by
8KB when I used the -O (peephole optimizer) option. I think that puts
the size in the same ballpark with the gcc-compiled (with -O3) version.

The only other C compiler I have for my current environment is TurboC
V3.0 - an old friend, but not always convenient in current MS platforms.
Unless I discover a particular need to use TC3 (or discover some
horrible in lcc), I'll probably stick with lcc.

On May 6, 6:33 pm, Morris Dovey iedu.com> wrote:

Did you strip the executable, i.e. take out all the superfluous shite
that isn't needed? When using gcc, here's what I do to get a lean
executable:

gcc hello.c -D NDEBUG -ansi -pedantic -S -O3 -o hello.exe

It gave me an executable of 397 bytes for the follow program:

#include

int main(void)
{
puts("Hello World!");
return 0;
}

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:

I don't remember, but I'll check when I'm next on that machine (it's 16
miles from here at my shop). I've liked using gcc on the Linux box - and
expect that I'll enjoy using lcc on this one.

On 6 May 2008 at 17:41, Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:

Yeah, gotta hate all that superfluous shite that does absolutely nothing
except let you debug your program.

Morris Dovey iedu.com> writes:

[...]

jacob's compiler is called "lcc-win". "lcc" is a different compiler
(the one on which lcc-win was based). It's an important distinction.

[...]

Such a warning seems perfectly friendly to me. Would you prefer that
it didn't tell you that you might have mistyped "==" as "="?

[snip]

Antoninus Twink wrote:

I don't much worry about it. Since loading Red Hat's v4.1 on the shop
computer, I've run gdb exactly once - because I thought I should try it
out for the experience (just in case).

Never needed it. Still - it's there if the need does arise.

Morris Dovey wrote:

On May 6, 7:19 pm, Keith Thompson mib.org> wrote:

I love what gcc has to say about it:

warning: suggest parentheses around assignment used as truth value

I've actually taken its advice and started doing:

if ((i=5)) DoWhatever();

Keith Thompson wrote:

Hmm - ok. It does identify itself as lcc-win32, but the executable is
lcc.exe - I'll keep the distinction in mind. Thanks.

Yes, unless I've actually made a mistake

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe schrieb:

Ehrm, the "-S" parameter creates assembly output - are you sure that the
compiled executable works?

Kind Regards,
Johannes