Zig cc: A drop-in replacement for GCC/Clang (2020)
andrewkelley.me
Zig cc: A drop-in replacement for GCC/Clang (2020)
1–10 of 126 posts
Re: Zig cc: A drop-in replacement for GCC/Clang (2020)
#2I don't understand the difference. Is "zig cc" more smart to find included files than the other compilers?
Re: Zig cc: A drop-in replacement for GCC/Clang (2020)
#3Previous discussion:
Re: Zig cc: A drop-in replacement for GCC/Clang (2020)
#4I don't understand the difference. Is "zig cc" more smart to find included files than the other compilers?
The article goes into great detail of the differences.
Re: Zig cc: A drop-in replacement for GCC/Clang (2020)
#5`zcc` would be even better.
Re: Zig cc: A drop-in replacement for GCC/Clang (2020)
#6I really like what they've done for cross-compilation. Automatically selecting appropriate libc/crt implementation is such a relief.
Compared to Zig, cross-compilation in C/C++/Rust seems downright user-hostile: you have to obtain the correct cross-sdk, but it won't tell you which one, or how to get it (some combos don't even exist), or even where to put it. If you don't guess everything correctly, it will fail with inscrutable errors, or worse, only fail at runtime on the target machine.
Re: Zig cc: A drop-in replacement for GCC/Clang (2020)
#7I don't understand the difference. Is "zig cc" more smart to find included files than the other compilers?
zig distributes critical stuff like C library headers and libs. So it's not smarter, just more convenient. Built in support for several OS/architecture combos.
Re: Zig cc: A drop-in replacement for GCC/Clang (2020)
#8I really like what they've done for cross-compilation. Automatically selecting appropriate libc/crt implementation is such a relief. Compared to Zig, cross-compilation in C/C++/Rust seems downright user-hostile: you have to obtain the correct cross-sdk, but it won't tell you which one, or how to get it (some combos don't even exist), or even where to put it. If you don't guess everything correctly, it will fail with…
What this kind of stories always miss is that the host platform needs all system libraries for the target platform for anything beyond the basic examples using the standard library.
E.g. try to cross compile Metal shading example for iOS from Linux with zig, or do a Win2D UWP rendering application from Linux with zig.
Re: Zig cc: A drop-in replacement for GCC/Clang (2020)
#9I really like what they've done for cross-compilation. Automatically selecting appropriate libc/crt implementation is such a relief. Compared to Zig, cross-compilation in C/C++/Rust seems downright user-hostile: you have to obtain the correct cross-sdk, but it won't tell you which one, or how to get it (some combos don't even exist), or even where to put it. If you don't guess everything correctly, it will fail with…
> Compared to Zig, cross-compilation in C/C++/Rust seems downright user-hostile:
This has been the status quo for so very long. Usually these projects are maintained by different teams. IMO musl is more accessible than glibc and that's part of what makes it easier to distribute. Arm and x86 coexisting for as long as they have is a factor, and so is Kelley's ambition to make this use case well-supported. nostdlib is also well-supported by Zig btw.
Re: Zig cc: A drop-in replacement for GCC/Clang (2020)
#10It does look impressive! Does anyone know if Zig exposes some APIs to extract/manipulate/analyze the AST of the C program? It might be a nice alternative to LLVM, which I find a little overwhelming.