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
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
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
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
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
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
