I agree that .h files could be accepted by default, although a good practice is to use -x c, as it could be a c++ header that would work with gcc but not tcc. However I don't think -Tc should be added on Windows, as tcc does not accept cl.exe options in general like clang-cl does. The -x option works fine on windows.
On Sun, 27 Jun 2021 at 08:24, Christian Jullien <[email protected]> wrote: > Tcc already accepts –x option which is compatible with gcc. If no –x c > option is supplied, gcc compiles a .h as if it was a .c file but tcc > complains. > > So, tcc will be more compatible with gcc if it does the same (i.e. w.o. –x > c option). > > > > $ gcc -x c foo.h –o foo > > $ tcc -x c foo.h –o foo > > > > To be complete, it should also support –Tc option on Windows which is what > VC++ does to compile any extension as a C file. > > > > c:>cl -nologo -Tc foo.h > > foo.h > > > > C. > > > > *From:* Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis= > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Arthur Williams > *Sent:* Sunday, June 27, 2021 07:59 > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [Tinycc-devel] Proposal to allow tcc to compile header files > > > > I've noticed some programs (eg strace) fail to compile with tcc because > they try to compile a header and tcc fails with "unrecognized file type". > Compiling the header as if it was a ".c" seems like a safe thing to do and > is a simple patch. > > Any objections/concerns? I'm not trying to defend/encourage the act of > compiling headers, but would prefer to not have to patch all the offending > packages if it could be avoided. > _______________________________________________ > 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
