Re: [dev] C variants, compilers and completeness
On 19 August 2023 12:37:23 am NZST, "Страхиња Радић" wrote: >I haven't checked recently, but the most noticeable missing feature of cproc, >as well as some other compilers, were VLAs. When someone writes the support >for >VLAs, cproc & co. will become much more usable. VLAs are optional in the latest C standards and didn't exist at all in C89. They are a misfeature, at least when put on the stack. They're quite useful as a type system feature for index and size calculations though. >The simpler compilers generally work for smaller projects, but for many >existing packages, for now there is no real alternative to GCC and Clang/LLVM. Sadly, this is true. Most software seems to use some extensions from GCC. The only reason clang is usable is that it tries to be bug-compatible with GNU extensions. Something we can all do is try to patch software to be more compatible. If you know that there is software out there that could use only standardised features but uses GNU extensions unnecessarily, consider submitting a patch. That would be better than bloating these small compilers by adding all of GNU's bad ideas. Unfortunately, some people (*cough* systemd *cough*) deliberately use non-standard features in incompatible ways with the object of being incompatible, and for no other reason. But most programmers are saner than that, I think. This would also help those developers: other compilers tend to compile a lot faster than GCC/clang, at the cost of optimisations that are probably turned off during development anyway. Have a nice day, M.
Re: [dev] C variants, compilers and completeness
On 23/08/18 02:18, David Demelier wrote: > On Mon, 2023-07-24 at 17:38 +0200, Sagar Acharya wrote: > > I see C compilers recommended by suckless are: > > > > tinycc > > simplecc > > cproc > > qbe > > lacc > > qbe isn't a compiler. however cproc is promising but I had various > issues compiling some apps, can't use it as my daily for now. I haven't checked recently, but the most noticeable missing feature of cproc, as well as some other compilers, were VLAs. When someone writes the support for VLAs, cproc & co. will become much more usable. The simpler compilers generally work for smaller projects, but for many existing packages, for now there is no real alternative to GCC and Clang/LLVM. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [dev] C variants, compilers and completeness
On Mon, 2023-07-24 at 17:38 +0200, Sagar Acharya wrote: > I see C compilers recommended by suckless are: > > tinycc > simplecc > cproc > qbe > lacc qbe isn't a compiler. however cproc is promising but I had various issues compiling some apps, can't use it as my daily for now. -- David
Re: [dev] C variants, compilers and completeness
On Mon 24 Jul 2023, Sagar Acharya wrote: > I see C compilers recommended by suckless are: > > tinycc > simplecc > cproc > qbe > lacc > > Which variant of C do they offer? What are the differences and do they offer > sufficient features to express with a program completely? I tried to check if Michael Forney's C compiler was on the list and ran across this page while searching: https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2021/04/27/the-mir-c-interpreter-and-just-in-time-jit-compiler#how_the_mir_c_compiler_compares_with_other_c_compilers Thought it had some interesting comparisons of the compilers even if it is comparing them to an interpreter. Michael Forney's compiler is cproc which I thought was a very interesting and well designed alternative to GNU and llvm. I've also read that Rob Landley (who was active on the musl mailing list) had plans to work on a C compiler, but I think that project is dead. The code he was working on is still available and there's more information about his tcc forks here: https://landley.net/code/tinycc/ I know some projects use tcc successfully, but they're usually small projects. I thought pcc was also interesting for its cross platform capabilities, but probably not as efficient as some of the other choices and I think the version of C supported was rather dated. Sincerely L. Michaels https://www.softwarefreedomday.org/
Re: [dev] C variants, compilers and completeness
On Mon 24 Jul 2023, Sagar Acharya wrote: > > I see C compilers recommended by suckless are: > > tinycc > simplecc > cproc > qbe > lacc > > Which variant of C do they offer? What are the differences and do they offer > sufficient features to express with a program completely? Whether they are sufficient depends on your use case. Everything else is covered in their documentation. https://bellard.org/tcc http://git.simple-cc.org/scc/file/README.html https://sr.ht/~mcf/cproc https://github.com/larmel/lacc
[dev] C variants, compilers and completeness
I see C compilers recommended by suckless are: tinycc simplecc cproc qbe lacc Which variant of C do they offer? What are the differences and do they offer sufficient features to express with a program completely? Kindly comment some more on your explanation. Thanking you Sagar Acharya https://humaaraartha.in
