[tom_mellior]

Not sure what the parent means by it, but here is lines of code data generated using David A. Wheeler's 'SLOCCount'.

    SLOC Directory SLOC-by-Language (Sorted)
    36270   top_dir         ansic=35504,sh=460,perl=306
    28825   win32           ansic=28716,asm=109
    9692    tests           ansic=8806,asm=858,sh=28
    2395    lib             ansic=2252,asm=143
    158     include         ansic=158
    140     examples        ansic=140


    Totals grouped by language (dominant language first):
    ansic:        75576 (97.54%)
    asm:           1110 (1.43%)
    sh:             488 (0.63%)
    perl:           306 (0.39%)

As far as I can tell, the top-level directory is the actual compiler itself. 35k lines is pretty small for a real C compiler that can bootstrap GCC (the versions that were still written in pure C).

[vkazanov]

What I mean is what I said :-) 70k is not tiny. And one cannot just throw away a backend and say that it's not part of the compiler.

Compare it with a few others:

8cc/9cc - 10K LOC cproc - 7K LOC lcc - 30K LOC

[tom_mellior]

> And one cannot just throw away a backend and say that it's not part of the compiler.

OK. Let me rephrase: TCC doesn't have 35k lines of code, but with five minutes' work it could be turned into a compiler with 35k lines of code capable of bootstrapping GCC on Linux. That should be enough to compare it to the ones you list.

[vkazanov]

That's an interesting way to put it. :-D I believe we could do that to a lot of other compilers, say, lcc (30k) with its multiple backends and get something like 10-20k.

Anyways, what I was trying to say is that "tiny" in "tinycc" has lost its meaning already.

[userbinator]

cproc is not 7K self-contained either; from the GitHub page: "cproc is a C11 compiler using QBE as a backend".

[vkazanov]

that's correct. But even if you add qbe you only get 12k more, or about 20k, not 70k.