This is a noble goal and tcc does a great job for the size of the codebase.
On the other hand using libtcc looks like a good way to JIT and/or compile other languages quickly. Parse X language, emit plain C, ship a runtime and you are in business :-)) This prospect attracts wannabe language enthusiasts like myself and I won't be surprised if a new goal for "tcc as a language kit" becomes popular. Emitting plain C and using libtcc allows language X to be even interpreted in it's own IDE before later compiling again with tcc (or with gcc -O2 if available) to executables. So again I see this has been discussed, tcc as a backend/JIT is attractive alternative provided that it now even has adequate GAS support -- intrinsics are natural further development it this case. I hate code-bloat and can see the "scars" the mob branch has inflicted on the codebase. Now I consider some of my earlier commits to be mistakes (tcc's -dM option anyone?) but sometimes impl a new feature in 10 lines of code look very tempting. Copy/pasting 150 lines from parse_line_comment/parse_comment I just don't understand. cheers, </wqw> -----Original Message----- From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Matz Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 3:54 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Implementing gcc intrinsics Hi, On Fri, 8 Apr 2016, Vladimir Vissoultchev wrote: > How would you implement intrinsic functions in tcc? I wouldn't except for those that really need compiler support (which are very few). This is supposed to be a tiny CC, remember, with one goal being C99 compatible (if we ever get there). Not to implement everything that other compilers provide. Ciao, Michael. _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
