Detlef Riekenberg wrote:
> (Keep in mind the goals for tcc:
> simple with a high compilation speed)
+1
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023 at 08:34:00AM -0400, John Mastronardo via Tinycc-devel
wrote:
> Strive for a fully compatible C99, published as a stable C99 1.0 release as
> soon as possible. Call this
On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 07:02:10PM +0100, Reimar Döffinger wrote:
> > On 30 Oct 2023, at 10:07, gz8...@0w.se wrote:
> > This looks to me like bugs in the corresponding projects?..
> > (we shouldn't put code into tcc to work around someone else's *bugs*)
>
> Checking for every single possible
On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 08:41:13AM +0100, Reimar Döffinger wrote:
> My reason for implementing it is compatibility.
> Quite a few projects will default to thin archives, and if you configure them
> for CC=tcc they will fail to compile because of it.
> They test for ar support of thin archives, but
I think it is on topic here to mention a project [1]
where the Tiny C Compiler is a vital part.
Kudos to the Tiny CC developers for your work.
/tccm
[1]
http://rbzfp7h25zcnmxu4wnxhespe64addpopah5ckfpdfyy4qetpziitp5qd.onion/
"We seem to be the first project offering bootstrappable and verifiable
On Fri, Jul 07, 2023 at 10:12:48PM +0100, Jonathan Newman wrote:
> Speed is a very useful feature in itself. tcc is fast enough that I can
> often forego a proper make system and just recompile everything every time,
> which eliminates a source of complexity and potential issues.
+1
Build
On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 08:28:25PM +0200, grischka wrote:
> BUT: tinycc does have a mission that gcc does not have, which is to be
> fast and simple. So I guess it will have to make some restrictions
> to the feature as to what extend it can be supported sensibly.
+1
> For example tinycc could
