P.S. what would be yet even more complicated but interesting is to add a kind of 2 phase compile, where the "head" of the tcc parser would be able to parse the "translated" (or pre-parsed code) code the same way as it does with the macro expansion.
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 3:13 PM, mobi phil <[email protected]> wrote: > Domingo, > > thanks for your quick answer. Please note that one of the reason I want to > stay tcc is: > -> the speed and relative simplicity, this is probably the reason keeps > all of you close to tcc > -> I want to stay C syntax. Do not want to invent another language. Want > just to embed constructs to the existing language. > > so for these reasons things like lex/yacc, vala etc. are out of question. > > Had a look at the other links as well, but they are far from what I want. > > I would love to see C evolving without the "dictated by committee > syndrome" (or whatsoever is > the pejorative) and tcc would be probably a nice opportunity to experiment. > > mobi phil > > -- rgrds, mobi phil being mobile, but including technology http://mobiphil.com
_______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
