On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:34:15AM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
> On 27.09.2017 06:55, Christian Jullien wrote:
> > 1) fully supported on Linux on x86/x64/arm/aarch64
> > 2) fully supported on Windows x86/x64
> > 3) Unclear or not fully supported on *BSD and macOS, My different attempts
> > on Fr
On 27.09.2017 06:55, Christian Jullien wrote:
> I have the impression that this discussion is more philosophic than
> pragmatic.
>
> Today tcc compiles and runs on limited number of systems/processors which
> are AFAIK:
>
> 1) fully supported on Linux on x86/x64/arm/aarch64
> 2) fully supported o
septembre 2017 04:38
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Using tinycc for full source bootstrapping
On 9/27/2017 10:26 AM, Michael B. Smith wrote:
> As I read your comments, especially these:
>
>>> I would find it awesome if tinycc would restrict its source to C89.
&g
Behalf Of KHMan
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 10:18 PM
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Using tinycc for full source bootstrapping
[snipped everything]
--
Cheers,
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Selangor, Malaysia
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
[mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+michael=theessentialexchange@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of KHMan
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 10:18 PM
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Using tinycc for full source bootstrapping
On 9/27/2017 9:54 AM, Michael B. Smith wrote:
> You funny.
>
&g
someone wants to bootstrap without any tiny bit
of any kind of cross compiling variations.
No offense, but I don't think I have been out of line.
-Original Message-
From: Tinycc-devel On Behalf Of KHMan
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 9:41 PM
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subje
ffense, but I don't think you understand the real world.
-Original Message-
From: Tinycc-devel
[mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+michael=theessentialexchange@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of KHMan
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 9:41 PM
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-deve
On 9/27/2017 5:30 AM, u-j...@aetey.se wrote:
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 07:40:32PM +0200, grischka wrote:
Also as source tcc is supposed to be C89, except maybe 'long long'
and maybe some minor things here or there which we could change
indeed if that is wanted (for example usage of compound initia
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 07:40:32PM +0200, grischka wrote:
> Also as source tcc is supposed to be C89, except maybe 'long long'
> and maybe some minor things here or there which we could change
> indeed if that is wanted (for example usage of compound initializers
> in arm-gen.c)
[not a tinycc deve
ssage-
From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org]
On Behalf Of grischka
Sent: mardi 26 septembre 2017 09:19
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Using tinycc for full source bootstrapping
Larry Doolittle wrote:
> The comma operator example yo
Larry Doolittle wrote:
The comma operator example you posted, that confused me at first,
is an exception, and I just pushed a patch.
You override someone else's style decision with your own because you
are confused?
We're all confused, eventually.
-- gr
___
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 07:40:32PM +0200, grischka wrote:
> Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> >Are you willing to consider discussing/taking patches that reduce the
> >variety and complexity of C constructs used in TinyCC source code?
> >I have a list of about 20 unpolished patches[0] for constructs like:
Friends -
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 12:27:17PM -0700, Larry Doolittle wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 09:48:25AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> > -p[0] = x & 255, p[1] = x >> 8 & 255;
> The original line above, however, screams "I am a bug" to me.
> The return value of "x & 255" is ignored,
Friends -
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 09:48:25AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> -p[0] = x & 255, p[1] = x >> 8 & 255;
> +p[0] = x & 255; p[1] = x >> 8 & 255;
I think the comma operator is an awesome part of the C standard,
and sometimes permits much more clear and concise expression of
pro
I wonder which would be the smaller patch: The changes you propose
for tcc or a patch to support these constructs as is in the bootstrap
compiler.
Otherwise if that is not your criterion what would be the arguments
for the semantics that you mention that they do not belong to
"simple enough C"?
A non-maintainer, here are my 2c:
As a matter of style, I like this idea but:
- tcc is probably already the smallest C compiler that compiles a decent C
compiler
- as you probably noticed, there is not a huge activity on tcc these days and I
personally prefer than one spent time on something imm
I'm not an active contributor so my opinion doesn't count for much,
but here it is anyway.
Though I like the idea of implementing TCC in a smaller subset of C it
should be a clearly defined subset of C and preferably one that makes
sense generally rather than just for a particular bootstrap path.
17 matches
Mail list logo
