C Compiler

which is the best compiler for C?

Attached: A C.jpg (1920x1080, 336K)

Other urls found in this thread:

repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git
software.intel.com/en-us/articles/optimization-notice
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

clang

Attached: 1920px-LLVM_Logo.svg.png (1920x1441, 636K)

gcc

g++

tcc

^ this

How do I get this kind of coding theme?

GCC

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

Intel C compiler. (btw I hate incel)

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

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

ICC unironically

That picture is completely wrong.

fpbp

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

Deprecated. There is no good C compiler anymore.

Attached: tfw you wouldn't believe.jpg (273x302, 26K)

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

OpenBSD dropped GCC for LLVM a few versions ago

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.

Attached: br.jpg (1280x720, 102K)

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

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?

This

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

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

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

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

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.

>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.

Attached: 1524958910192.png (660x582, 1.47M)

how to get this clean font rendering

tcc

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

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: software.intel.com/en-us/articles/optimization-notice