On 18.04.2023 07:41, certanan via Tinycc-devel wrote:
I couldn't find any specific reasons as to why '--' was replaced by '-run'
(other than '-run' being implicitly more coherent than '--'). Since there is a
possibility that older scripts still depend on '--', would it be a bad idea to
re-implement it for the sake of backward compatibility, and state its
deprecated status in documentation?
What about the possibility that the "older" script that you found
https://github.com/qemacs/qemacs/blob/master/qe.tcc
still exists there unchanged because nobody did even try it with
a more recent version of tcc since then?
Did you check how well it would work at all?
-- gr
- certanan
------- Original Message -------
On Monday, April 17th, 2023 at 8:18 AM, grischka <[email protected]> wrote:
On 17.04.2023 07:59, avih via Tinycc-devel wrote:
What some random script tries or doesn't try to do is irrelevant.
In a case however where the script and the tcc to be used with it
were written by the same author at the same time, we probably better
assume that it actually did work.
As it seems the purpose was different though, i.e. the '--' once
was used with instant execution to separate tcc args from the
program's args.
See commit here (from almost exactly 20 years ago) where "--" then
was replaced by "-run" as it still exists.
https://repo.or.cz/tinycc.git/commitdiff/40987541dc683a13cef764aa33f5da21b2660817
tcc should follow the spec and common practices.
... provided that these do make sense in tcc's own context. In cases
it better shouldn't.
For example, not to support compilation of files such as -c.c is
not a problem as long as we assume that such files do not exist.
Other than that tcc currently does support these forms with -run:
tcc options [files less one] -run last_file arguments
and also
tcc "-run options" file arguments (for usage with "#!", see ex4.c)
and also
tcc options files -run @ arguments
I'd consider the latter form still rather "unofficial" so we could
still replace it by
tcc options files -run -- arguments
which might (or might not) look better, in some sense.
What do people think?
-- grischka
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
