Subject: Re: should we replace the shell?
To: Chris G Demetriou <>
From: Bakul Shah <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 12/07/1994 20:12:25
> ash is a 'reasonable' (if not perfect) shell.  you'd be hard pressed
> to find a reasonable replacement for gcc.  (if you find one, tell us;
> we'd definitely be interested in thinking about it...)

Well, lcc comes close.
	A fraction of the gcc's size (both, binary and source)
	Very efficient at compiling
	One binary generates x86, mips & sparc (and yet is small)
	New backends can be generated relatively easily
	the machine description is quite compact
	Not GPLed
	Does not generate code for all the architectures NetBSD runs on
	No asm support (but can be hacked in realtively easily)
	Generated code is not as efficient as gcc
	Does not do c++
	Does not do -PIC

My guestimate is that it will take on the order of 6 months
of work to make lcc usable on 386/sparc/mips platforms (with
other gnu tools).  It is a more modern compiler and I
suspect it is much more flexible and modifiable in the long
run.  Check it out!


$ ls -l lcc-3.1.tar.gz
-rw-r--r--  1 bvs  wheel  625083 Sep  9 19:28 lcc-3.1.tar.gz
$ size lcc-3.1/src/rcc
text    data    bss     dec     hex
217088  28672   23200   268960  41aa0