On 2022-07-13 20:12:25 +0200, grischka wrote: > On 13.07.2022 17:17, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2022-07-13 12:01:57 +0200, grischka wrote: > > > There was no bug here in tcc, it was/is just different behavior, fully > > > intentional and even documented with a test case. > > > > There was a bug in tcc: the ISO C standard requires a diagnostic. > > Well, define "bug" ...? > > In my book, a bug is unwanted behavior in the sense of unwanted by > the person who wrote the code. It is when what I wrote (for example) > doesn't do what I want. > > Common sources of bugs are, beyond simple mistakes, that (1) I maybe don't > really know what I want, or maybe that (2) I refuse to acknowledge that > what I want, in combination, is logically impossible. > > It is not a bug, per se, when tcc doesn't work like gcc, or when it doesn't > conform to the standards in some aspect. As long the behavior is on purpose > and consistent. In my book.
Well, in the tcc manual, there seems to be an intent to support C99: TCC implements many features of the new C standard: ISO C99. Currently missing items are: complex and imaginary numbers. The absence of required diagnostics is not a missing item. And note that this is not listed as an extension either. -- Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
