Re: [Tinycc-devel] Calling for Release 0.10.0
> It also frustrates me that 0.9.27 is the last stable version and has a > handful of nagging bugs. If I could throw $100 at this effort, I > would.Likewise. > If a few folks agree on a day to to lock off a branch at some point, I would > absolutely be down for testing the heck out of it on x86_64.I would do same > on ARM, as I do have the hardware for that (both Windows and *x) Fred ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Calling for Release 0.10.0
TCC is indeed an important gem! I’ll admit that it’s not easy to find the latest version from the Tinycc-devel team at nongnu.org.It would be greatly appreciated if someone would provide us new users direct links where we can download your latest stable releases, clearly pinpointed for the various platforms, e.g., Win 64. I’m kinda new to C and have actually been been using the old compiler (0.9.27) from Fabrice Bellard’s Website at bellard.org in a DOS box. It would be even more wonderful to be able to easily download your latest, more relevant releases. —JMOn May 31, 2023, at 2:49 PM, Stéphane Cocquereaumont wrote: This is not such a big issue for tcc users and contributors, but I am sure it is discouraging for potential new users. The project itself is not that easy to find, and at first glance it can appear abandoned. tcc is an important little gem. On 31/05/2023 19:43, John Mastro via Tinycc-devel wrote: Yes, it also frustrates me that 0.9.27 (published in 2018, correct??) is the last stable version with its handful of bugs. In my respectful opinion, it would and should be a goal of the current volunteer developers to release a locked down official “production” release of TCC. Calling it Version 10.0 for the general population of TCC users like myself sounds reasonable. —JM On May 31, 2023, at 1:56 PM, Charles Lohr wrote: also frustrates me that 0.9.27 is the last stable version and has a handful of nagging bugs. ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel ___Tinycc-devel mailing listTinycc-devel@nongnu.orghttps://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Calling for Release 0.10.0
I use TCC on a regular basis. I agree with the idea of locking down what is currently in the repository, testing that, and applying only fixes, with the goal of a new release. I can give time to testing and fixing. Jordan Original Message SUBJECT: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Calling for Release 0.10.0 DATE: 2023-05-31 14:48 FROM: Stéphane Cocquereaumont TO: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org This is not such a big issue for tcc users and contributors, but I am sure it is discouraging for potential new users. The project itself is not that easy to find, and at first glance it can appear abandoned. tcc is an important little gem. On 31/05/2023 19:43, John Mastro via Tinycc-devel wrote: Yes, it also frustrates me that 0.9.27 (published in 2018, correct??) is the last stable version with its handful of bugs. In my respectful opinion, it would and should be a goal of the current volunteer developers to release a locked down official "production" release of TCC. Calling it Version 10.0 for the general population of TCC users like myself sounds reasonable. --JM On May 31, 2023, at 1:56 PM, Charles Lohr wrote: also frustrates me that 0.9.27 is the last stable version and has a handful of nagging bugs. ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Calling for Release 0.10.0
This is not such a big issue for tcc users and contributors, but I am sure it is discouraging for potential new users. The project itself is not that easy to find, and at first glance it can appear abandoned. tcc is an important little gem. On 31/05/2023 19:43, John Mastro via Tinycc-devel wrote: Yes, it also frustrates me that 0.9.27 (published in 2018, correct??) is the last stable version with its handful of bugs. In my respectful opinion, it would and should be a goal of the current volunteer developers to release a locked down official “production” release of TCC. Calling it Version 10.0 for the general population of TCC users like myself sounds reasonable. —JM On May 31, 2023, at 1:56 PM, Charles Lohr wrote: also frustrates me that 0.9.27 is the last stable version and has a handful of nagging bugs. ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Calling for Release 0.10.0
Yes, it also frustrates me that 0.9.27 (published in 2018, correct??) is the last stable version with its handful of bugs. In my respectful opinion, it would and should be a goal of the current volunteer developers to release a locked down official “production” release of TCC. Calling it Version 10.0 for the general population of TCC users like myself sounds reasonable. —JM > On May 31, 2023, at 1:56 PM, Charles Lohr wrote: > > also frustrates me that 0.9.27 is the last stable version and has a handful > of nagging bugs. ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Calling for Release 0.10.0
I have used TCC in many personal and professional projects, and it has been invaluable in my professional career as well in my hobbies. Not a week goes by without half a dozen invocations of TinyCC in my life. Individuals I introduce to my build environment come away pleasantly surprised that for a 4MB download they get full access to the Win32 API. It also frustrates me that 0.9.27 is the last stable version and has a handful of nagging bugs. If I could throw $100 at this effort, I would. If a few folks agree on a day to to lock off a branch at some point, I would absolutely be down for testing the heck out of it on x86_64. Charles On Mon, May 29, 2023 at 6:10 PM Fred van Kempen via Tinycc-devel < tinycc-devel@nongnu.org> wrote: > > Tcc still have to be reliable and not falling on simple corner cases > because someone decided to push a > > patch on the mob branch, requiring someone else to remove it. > It did not fail, and there is no "requirement" to remove it. That said, > I did update it to remove the unneeded malloc. > > > I'd like tcc not to be considered just a "quick hack" or a "toy > compiler" due > > to its inherent simplicity, it still have to produce correct and > reliable code. > > > Especially since its internals are so "simple", there is no reason tcc > couldn't > > be thoroughly tested and stabilized orthogonally across all supported > architectures. > That does not happen if there are no defined release cycles. > > > Let's do a feature freeze first, a comparison checklist with other > compilers, supporting > > common flags and attributes, producing correct binary files (Windows, > Linux, Mac, ...). > I am working on ARM-PE support, and verification of PE in general (when > compared to what > Visual Studio generates.) > > > Then after a few release candidates, maybe only we could decide the last > RC to be > > worthwhile enough to get released with the new official 0.10.0 tags that > we could feel proud of. > Just in time for the holiday season - in 2024 :) > > > Our view on tcc may diverge, but rest assured I like it anyway, I just > would like it to be treated > > more fairly and professionally than its original legacy. > That usually does not happen without regular updates, a defined release > policy, and so on. If > I tell my boss "Hey, lets go and use this compiler!" and he sees its last > release was 5 years ago, > he'll tell me to just take a few days off and come back all rested :) > > --Fred > > ___ > Tinycc-devel mailing list > Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel > ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Calling for Release 0.10.0
Tinycc is no "toy compiler". Let us not assign such names please. A small compiler is always superior to a big compiler. As long as tinycc generates least number of instructions being reasonably good doing so, it is a full fledged minimal compiler. In my view, it should keep updated with latest versions of C. Thanking you Sagar Acharya http://humaaraartha.in <https://humaaraartha.in> 31 May 2023, 18:39 by tinycc-devel@nongnu.org: > > > David Koch is spot on. I couldn’t agree more, and I’m paraphrasing him here: > > > Pause the adventurous code. Do a feature freeze and a comparison checklist > with other compilers. Then thoroughly test a few release candidates with a > chosen set of popular platforms. After that, publish a completely stable new > official TCC 10.0 that we can be proud of. > > > Like David, I’d like TCC to be treated more professionally than its original > legacy. > > > And, I also thank you all for putting your time and passion into its > maintenance. > > > —JM > > > > > > >> On May 29, 2023, at 6:06 PM, david.k...@libertysurf.fr wrote: >> >> >> Hi Detlef, >> >> I don't care about the "simplicity" of tcc and its supposed goal not to >> compete with larger and more established compilers like gcc or clang. >> >> Tcc still have to be reliable and not falling on simple corner cases because >> someone decided to push a patch on the mob branch, requiring someone else to >> remove it. >> >> I'd like tcc not to be considered just a "quick hack" or a "toy compiler" >> due to its inherent simplicity, it still have to produce correct and >> reliable code. >> >> Especially since its internals are so "simple", there is no reason tcc >> couldn't be thoroughly tested and stabilized orthogonally across all >> supported architectures. >> >> It's been more than 5 years since the last "stable" release, I'd like the >> next one to be as much "reliable" despite the mob branch will still remain >> the Wild Wide West of salvage patches. >> >> Experimenting is one thing, but regarding the last few months of adventurous >> code modifications and group discussions, I would NOT bet on just numbering >> the current state as being the new 0.10.0. >> >> Let's do a feature freeze first, a comparison checklist with other >> compilers, supporting common flags and attributes, producing correct binary >> files (Windows, Linux, Mac, ...). >> >> Then after a few release candidates, maybe only we could decide the last RC >> to be worthwhile enough to get released with the new official 0.10.0 tags >> that we could feel proud of. >> >> Until then tcc:mob will just remain a nerd's joke and a geek's playground >> that only a few insiders can really use it after great hacking to get it to >> work almost like expected. >> >> Our view on tcc may diverge, but rest assured I like it anyway, I just would >> like it to be treated more fairly and professionally than its original >> legacy. >> >> Thank you all for putting all such time and passion into its maintenance. >> >> Regards. >> >> >> - Mail d'origine - >> De: wine dev >> À: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org >> Envoyé: Mon, 29 May 2023 14:39:17 +0200 (CEST) >> Objet: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Re : Calling for Release 0.10.0 >> >> >>> [Tinycc-devel] Re : Calling for Release 0.10.0 – Hi, >>> >>> >>> >>> the mob branch is pretty much unstable. >>> >>> >>> >>> Before turning the mob branch into a new release, better do some thorough >>> >>> checking and regression testing. >>> >>> >>> >>> And have something consistent across the various supported platforms (x86, >>> >>> AMD64, ARM, M1, RISC-V, ...). >>> >>> >>> >>> Regards. [...] >>> >> >> Where do you see tcc to be unstable? >> >> Yes, the last patch is ugly and should be removed or fixed >> (path is created with alloca and later overwritten with malloc), >> and that patch is only used as fallback, >> when CONFIG_TCCDIR is undefined. >> >> Primary goals for tcc are: >> * Compile to correct code, >> * as fast as possible, >> * while being as simple as possible >> >> >> For memory leaks from malloc, which are only freed at program shutdown: >> A design decision is not a bug. >> * tcc is a short running program, >>
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Calling for Release 0.10.0
Hello all ! I would like to offer my patch for fully reentrant TCC for the upcoming release (see here https://github.com/mingodad/tinycc ) ! Cheers ! On 31/5/23 15:07, John Mastronardo via Tinycc-devel wrote: David Koch is spot on. I couldn’t agree more, and I’m paraphrasing him here: Pause the adventurous code. Do a feature freeze and a comparison checklist with other compilers. Then thoroughly test a few release candidates with a chosen set of popular platforms. After that, publish a completely stable new official TCC 10.0 that we can be proud of. Like David, I’d like TCC to be treated more professionally than its original legacy. And, I also thank you all for putting your time and passion into its maintenance. —JM On May 29, 2023, at 6:06 PM, david.k...@libertysurf.fr wrote: Hi Detlef, I don't care about the "simplicity" of tcc and its supposed goal not to compete with larger and more established compilers like gcc or clang. Tcc still have to be reliable and not falling on simple corner cases because someone decided to push a patch on the mob branch, requiring someone else to remove it. I'd like tcc not to be considered just a "quick hack" or a "toy compiler" due to its inherent simplicity, it still have to produce correct and reliable code. Especially since its internals are so "simple", there is no reason tcc couldn't be thoroughly tested and stabilized orthogonally across all supported architectures. It's been more than 5 years since the last "stable" release, I'd like the next one to be as much "reliable" despite the mob branch will still remain the Wild Wide West of salvage patches. Experimenting is one thing, but regarding the last few months of adventurous code modifications and group discussions, I would NOT bet on just numbering the current state as being the new 0.10.0. Let's do a feature freeze first, a comparison checklist with other compilers, supporting common flags and attributes, producing correct binary files (Windows, Linux, Mac, ...). Then after a few release candidates, maybe only we could decide the last RC to be worthwhile enough to get released with the new official 0.10.0 tags that we could feel proud of. Until then tcc:mob will just remain a nerd's joke and a geek's playground that only a few insiders can really use it after great hacking to get it to work almost like expected. Our view on tcc may diverge, but rest assured I like it anyway, I just would like it to be treated more fairly and professionally than its original legacy. Thank you all for putting all such time and passion into its maintenance. Regards. - Mail d'origine - De: wine dev À: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org Envoyé: Mon, 29 May 2023 14:39:17 +0200 (CEST) Objet: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Re : Calling for Release 0.10.0 [Tinycc-devel] Re : Calling for Release 0.10.0 – Hi, the mob branch is pretty much unstable. Before turning the mob branch into a new release, better do some thorough checking and regression testing. And have something consistent across the various supported platforms (x86, AMD64, ARM, M1, RISC-V, ...). Regards. [...] Where do you see tcc to be unstable? Yes, the last patch is ugly and should be removed or fixed (path is created with alloca and later overwritten with malloc), and that patch is only used as fallback, when CONFIG_TCCDIR is undefined. Primary goals for tcc are: * Compile to correct code, * as fast as possible, * while being as simple as possible For memory leaks from malloc, which are only freed at program shutdown: A design decision is not a bug. * tcc is a short running program, and a design decission to not free every memory from malloc is also done by other compiler for speed reasons: (look at DMC or DMD as examples.) (i dont know, if both compiler do not free, but i can remember, that walter bright wrote, not to free memory was his design decision for speed reasons). * things done in libtcc are different, as the programm, which is using libtcc might live longer. I would suggest to fix memory leaks in libtcc. For using an object format, with is not the same, what most other compiler use on that system: A design decision, and not a bug Disadvantage: * You can't link object files from other compiler Advantage: * simplify the code generator, the linker and probably other tools This is also done by other compiler for many Years: * Watcom/OpenWatcom uses OMF * Embarcadero C++ Builder: The newer compiler are based on clang and use ELF object files also on Windows -- Regards ... Detlef ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Calling for Release 0.10.0
David Koch is spot on. I couldn’t agree more, and I’m paraphrasing him here: Pause the adventurous code. Do a feature freeze and a comparison checklist with other compilers. Then thoroughly test a few release candidates with a chosen set of popular platforms. After that, publish a completely stable new official TCC 10.0 that we can be proud of. Like David, I’d like TCC to be treated more professionally than its original legacy. And, I also thank you all for putting your time and passion into its maintenance. —JM > On May 29, 2023, at 6:06 PM, david.k...@libertysurf.fr wrote: > > Hi Detlef, > > I don't care about the "simplicity" of tcc and its supposed goal not to > compete with larger and more established compilers like gcc or clang. > > Tcc still have to be reliable and not falling on simple corner cases because > someone decided to push a patch on the mob branch, requiring someone else to > remove it. > > I'd like tcc not to be considered just a "quick hack" or a "toy compiler" due > to its inherent simplicity, it still have to produce correct and reliable > code. > > Especially since its internals are so "simple", there is no reason tcc > couldn't be thoroughly tested and stabilized orthogonally across all > supported architectures. > > It's been more than 5 years since the last "stable" release, I'd like the > next one to be as much "reliable" despite the mob branch will still remain > the Wild Wide West of salvage patches. > > Experimenting is one thing, but regarding the last few months of adventurous > code modifications and group discussions, I would NOT bet on just numbering > the current state as being the new 0.10.0. > > Let's do a feature freeze first, a comparison checklist with other compilers, > supporting common flags and attributes, producing correct binary files > (Windows, Linux, Mac, ...). > > Then after a few release candidates, maybe only we could decide the last RC > to be worthwhile enough to get released with the new official 0.10.0 tags > that we could feel proud of. > > Until then tcc:mob will just remain a nerd's joke and a geek's playground > that only a few insiders can really use it after great hacking to get it to > work almost like expected. > > Our view on tcc may diverge, but rest assured I like it anyway, I just would > like it to be treated more fairly and professionally than its original legacy. > > Thank you all for putting all such time and passion into its maintenance. > > Regards. > > > - Mail d'origine - > De: wine dev > À: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org > Envoyé: Mon, 29 May 2023 14:39:17 +0200 (CEST) > Objet: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Re : Calling for Release 0.10.0 > >> [Tinycc-devel] Re : Calling for Release 0.10.0 – Hi, >> >> the mob branch is pretty much unstable. >> >> Before turning the mob branch into a new release, better do some thorough >> checking and regression testing. >> >> And have something consistent across the various supported platforms (x86, >> AMD64, ARM, M1, RISC-V, ...). >> >> Regards. [...] > > Where do you see tcc to be unstable? > > Yes, the last patch is ugly and should be removed or fixed > (path is created with alloca and later overwritten with malloc), > and that patch is only used as fallback, > when CONFIG_TCCDIR is undefined. > > Primary goals for tcc are: > * Compile to correct code, > * as fast as possible, > * while being as simple as possible > > > For memory leaks from malloc, which are only freed at program shutdown: > A design decision is not a bug. > * tcc is a short running program, >and a design decission to not free every memory from malloc >is also done by other compiler for speed reasons: >(look at DMC or DMD as examples.) >(i dont know, if both compiler do not free, but i can remember, > that walter bright wrote, not to free memory was his > design decision for speed reasons). > * things done in libtcc are different, >as the programm, which is using libtcc might live longer. >I would suggest to fix memory leaks in libtcc. > > > For using an object format, with is not the same, what most other compiler > use on that system: > A design decision, and not a bug > Disadvantage: > * You can't link object files from other compiler > Advantage: > * simplify the code generator, the linker and probably other tools > > This is also done by other compiler for many Years: > * Watcom/OpenWatcom uses OMF > * Embarcadero C++ Builder: >The newer compiler are based on clang >and use ELF object files also on Windows > > -- > Rega
[Tinycc-devel] Calling for Release 0.10.0
Grischka: Please do a version bump to 0.10.0 and a release. This might help convince people that TCC isn't dead ... Thanks !! Fred ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
