Introduction
Introduction Statistics Contact Development Disclaimer Help
_______ __ _______
| | |.---.-..----.| |--..-----..----. | | |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
| || _ || __|| < | -__|| _| | || -__|| | | ||__ --|
|___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__| |__|____||_____||________||_____|
on Gopher (inofficial)
Visit Hacker News on the Web
COMMENT PAGE FOR:
How Compiler Explorer Works in 2025
galkk wrote 3 hours 0 min ago:
tl;dr:
* Right now, Compiler Explorer costs around $3000 a month
(including AWS, monitoring, Sentry for errors, Grafana, and other
expenses).
* nsjail for security/isolation
* 3.9 terabytes of compilers, libraries, and tools
* Up to 30+ EC2 instances (EC2 instances are virtual machines)
* 4,724 compiler versions
* 1,982,662 short links saved (and as of recently, ~14k ex-goo.gl
links)
* 1.8 million compilations per week
If my napkin math is correct, it's around 3 compilations/sec.
and their cost is 0.0004 cents per compilation. Fascinating. If anyone
asked me about ballpark estimate of compiler explorer cost, I'd be
wrong at least at magnitude. Like - they must be heavy cpu/io/network
bound, and this is like the worst scenario for cloud use.
This and lichess ( [1] ) shows that you really can handle very serious
loads for quite cheap.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41922928#41928953
dieortin wrote 2 hours 44 min ago:
> $3,00015
That’s a very weird place to put a comma. I have no idea what
number this is representing (since I doubt it’s $3 a month)
detaro wrote 2 hours 40 min ago:
the 15 is a copy-paste error (footnote)
sapiogram wrote 2 hours 33 min ago:
Thank you, the comment has value now.
wild_pointer wrote 3 hours 12 min ago:
How about compiling client-side with wasm, fully or partially?
Feasible? Was it considered?
jenadine wrote 2 hours 58 min ago:
That would imply compiling each compiler to wasm, which might not be
supported. Plus challenges like making a virtual file system to get
the header files and other files needed for the compilation.
Edit: also, you couldn't execute the resulting binary
petabyt wrote 3 hours 0 min ago:
Some of the compilers they use (msvc) are not open source and are not
allowed to run in wasm.
And porting entire compiler toolchains to wasm would be a gargantuan
task.
psnehanshu wrote 5 hours 17 min ago:
The tool is called Compiler Explorer, but is hosted at godbolt.org.
There's also compliler-explorer.com, which is the same thing. Why not
retire the first domain? Just redirect to the namesake domain to
prevent link rot.
jevndev wrote 3 hours 28 min ago:
Funny enough, he has talked about this exact problem on his podcast
“Two’s complement”; Specifically the episode “The future…
compiler explorer”. Commenters below are correct that it’s just
about how heavily associated his name is with the tool. I just
figured I’d also drop this source here because he has a lot of
interesting things to say about his involvement with the project
0xTJ wrote 3 hours 38 min ago:
When I want to visit Compiler Explorer, I start typing godbolt, then
his Enter when the browser brings up the correct item from my
History. "compiler-explorer.com" is also much longer (if you want to
type out the whole things).
MeetingsBrowser wrote 4 hours 10 min ago:
Most people I know, including myself, refer to it as godbolt and not
compiler explorer.
I didn’t know it was hosted anywhere other than godbolt.org
krackers wrote 5 hours 13 min ago:
Because most people colloquially know it as "Godbolt".
arkj wrote 5 hours 30 min ago:
Maybe it’s a client side error but I see three links of this post on
the homepage.
quaintdev wrote 5 hours 30 min ago:
Is it just me or something is wrong with HN
[1]: https://ibb.co/0RwqjZvP
arkj wrote 5 hours 4 min ago:
An interesting glitch. A few more refreshes and got the site
unavailable message. It’s fixed now.
unconed wrote 5 hours 42 min ago:
Putting AI disclaimers at the end of your post seems like the wrong way
to do it. If you feel the need to put a disclaimer, put it at the top.
Otherwise, what's the point?
arkj wrote 5 hours 1 min ago:
Will anything be ever written in future without a little help from
llm?
YetAnotherNick wrote 5 hours 28 min ago:
AI disclaimer is both in the top and bottom. First box contains:
> Written with LLM assistance. Details at end.
unconed wrote 5 hours 12 min ago:
Yep I totally didn't notice it because it's off to the side and
looks like some kind of promo box.
<- back to front page
You are viewing proxied material from codevoid.de. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.