Re: [Tinycc-devel] Implementation of '--' argument

2023-04-17 Thread certanan via Tinycc-devel 
I couldn't find any specific reasons as to why '--' was replaced by '-run' 
(other than '-run' being implicitly more coherent than '--'). Since there is a 
possibility that older scripts still depend on '--', would it be a bad idea to 
re-implement it for the sake of backward compatibility, and state its 
deprecated status in documentation?

- certanan

--- Original Message ---
On Monday, April 17th, 2023 at 8:18 AM, grischka  wrote:


> On 17.04.2023 07:59, avih via Tinycc-devel wrote:
> 
> > What some random script tries or doesn't try to do is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> In a case however where the script and the tcc to be used with it
> were written by the same author at the same time, we probably better
> assume that it actually did work.
> 
> As it seems the purpose was different though, i.e. the '--' once
> was used with instant execution to separate tcc args from the
> program's args.
> 
> See commit here (from almost exactly 20 years ago) where "--" then
> was replaced by "-run" as it still exists.
> 
> https://repo.or.cz/tinycc.git/commitdiff/40987541dc683a13cef764aa33f5da21b2660817
> 
> > tcc should follow the spec and common practices.
> 
> 
> ... provided that these do make sense in tcc's own context. In cases
> it better shouldn't.
> 
> For example, not to support compilation of files such as -c.c is
> not a problem as long as we assume that such files do not exist.
> 
> Other than that tcc currently does support these forms with -run:
> tcc options [files less one] -run last_file arguments
> and also
> tcc "-run options" file arguments (for usage with "#!", see ex4.c)
> and also
> tcc options files -run @ arguments
> 
> I'd consider the latter form still rather "unofficial" so we could
> still replace it by
> 
> tcc options files -run -- arguments
> 
> which might (or might not) look better, in some sense.
> 
> What do people think?
> 
> -- grischka
> 
>  
> ___
> 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] Implementation of '--' argument

2023-04-17 Thread ian 

Hi all.

Honestly ? When I read "-- option to tcc", I laughed at lot !

I consider this particularly irrelevant, and Grishka's comment is right
("For example, not to support compilation of files such as -c.c is not a 
problem as long as we assume that such files do not exist.")


Considering other cases, I just tried a very simple test case :
#!/usr/bin/env -S tcc inc.o -run
#include 
#include "inc.h"
int main(int argc, const char* argv[]) {
  for (int i=0;iFor example, not to support compilation of files such as -c.c is 

--
İȃɲ ƝᵋᵃʳᶩỾ
--*menea...@gmail.com*
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Implementation of '--' argument

2023-04-17 Thread grischka 

On 17.04.2023 07:59, avih via Tinycc-devel wrote:


What some random script tries or doesn't try to do is irrelevant.


In a case however where the script and the tcc to be used with it
were written by the same author at the same time, we probably better
assume that it actually did work.

As it seems the purpose was different though, i.e. the '--' once
was used with instant execution to separate tcc args from the
program's args.

See commit here (from almost exactly 20 years ago) where "--" then
was replaced by "-run" as it still exists.

https://repo.or.cz/tinycc.git/commitdiff/40987541dc683a13cef764aa33f5da21b2660817


tcc should follow the spec and common practices.


... provided that these do make sense in tcc's own context.  In cases
it better shouldn't.

For example, not to support compilation of files such as -c.c is
not a problem as long as we assume that such files do not exist.

Other than that tcc currently does support these forms with -run:
   tcc options [files less one] -run last_file arguments
and also
   tcc "-run options" file arguments (for usage with "#!", see ex4.c)
and also
   tcc options files -run @ arguments

I'd consider the latter form still rather "unofficial" so we could
still replace it by

   tcc options files -run -- arguments

which might (or might not) look better, in some sense.

What do people think?

-- grischka


Generally speaking, applications which respect the POSIX syntax
guidelines should treat non-option-argument "--" as an indication
that all further arguments are operands:
- https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap12.html

It's important to note that according to these guidelines, the
options always come before the operands. I.e. mixing of options and
operands (like GNU getopt does with permutations) is not allowed.

Therefore, the use of "--" is to indicate where the options end and
the operands start, especially for the case where the first operand
begins with "-".

"grep" should indeed respect these guidelines, and "--":
- https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/grep.html

However, there are exceptions, for instance "echo" should not
respect these guidelines and instead treat all arguments as operands:
- https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/echo.html

(the fact that some implementations of "echo" deviate from the spec
and allow options such as "-e" or "-n" is the reason for echo being
considered non portable, and why "printf" is recommended instead)

The "c99" utility, which should probably be considered the spec for
tcc, has some exceptions with regards to the syntax guidelines:
- https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/c99.html

While it does not specifically mention "--", it does say that
options and operands can be mixed, and some options should appear
after [c-files] operands, such as the "-l" and "-L" options
(check the synopsis).

For that reason, allowing "--" to be used before c-filenames
is a footgun, because then it's not possible to add "-l" or "-L"
options as needed by the spec.

The fact that gcc also doesn't recognize "--" is existing common
practice as well.

However, clang does recognize "--", and indeed, it rejects "-l"
or "-L" if they appear after "--" and some c-filenames.

As far as I can tell that's inconsistent with the "c99" POSIX spec.

So there you go. The main point of this is that it's not obvious
that tcc should respect "--" the same as some other utilities.

- avih

On Sunday, April 16, 2023, 11:44:24 PM GMT+3, certanan via Tinycc-devel 
 wrote:


I understand. But then what role does the flag fulfil in this script?
https://github.com/qemacs/qemacs/blob/master/qe.tcc

- certanan

 > I tried: gcc -- a.c
 > and got:
 > gcc: error: unrecognized command-line option '--'
 >
 > This is with prerelease of gcc 13.
 > So gcc does not support this. Why would this be needed for tcc?
 >
 > Herman
 >
 > ___
 > 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




___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Implementation of '--' argument

2023-04-17 Thread avih via Tinycc-devel 
 What some random script tries or doesn't try to do is irrelevant.

tcc should follow the spec and common practices.

Generally speaking, applications which respect the POSIX syntax
guidelines should treat non-option-argument "--" as an indication
that all further arguments are operands:
- https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap12.html

It's important to note that according to these guidelines, the
options always come before the operands. I.e. mixing of options and
operands (like GNU getopt does with permutations) is not allowed.

Therefore, the use of "--" is to indicate where the options end and
the operands start, especially for the case where the first operand
begins with "-".

"grep" should indeed respect these guidelines, and "--":
- https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/grep.html

However, there are exceptions, for instance "echo" should not
respect these guidelines and instead treat all arguments as operands:
- https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/echo.html

(the fact that some implementations of "echo" deviate from the spec
 and allow options such as "-e" or "-n" is the reason for echo being
 considered non portable, and why "printf" is recommended instead)

The "c99" utility, which should probably be considered the spec for
tcc, has some exceptions with regards to the syntax guidelines:
- https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/c99.html

While it does not specifically mention "--", it does say that
options and operands can be mixed, and some options should appear
after [c-files] operands, such as the "-l" and "-L" options
(check the synopsis).

For that reason, allowing "--" to be used before c-filenames
is a footgun, because then it's not possible to add "-l" or "-L"
options as needed by the spec.

The fact that gcc also doesn't recognize "--" is existing common
practice as well.

However, clang does recognize "--", and indeed, it rejects "-l"
or "-L" if they appear after "--" and some c-filenames.

As far as I can tell that's inconsistent with the "c99" POSIX spec.

So there you go. The main point of this is that it's not obvious
that tcc should respect "--" the same as some other utilities.

- avih

 On Sunday, April 16, 2023, 11:44:24 PM GMT+3, certanan via Tinycc-devel 
 wrote:  
 
 I understand. But then what role does the flag fulfil in this script?
https://github.com/qemacs/qemacs/blob/master/qe.tcc

- certanan

> I tried: gcc -- a.c
> and got:
> gcc: error: unrecognized command-line option '--'
> 
> This is with prerelease of gcc 13.
> So gcc does not support this. Why would this be needed for tcc?
> 
> Herman
> 
> ___
> 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