Hello tccm,
> pursue an exact implementation of a certain version At the very least certainly not this one : https://sebsite.pw/w/20260810-c89ambiguity.html I always stated I'm all for C11, for many reasons, starting with : https://stackoverflow.com/a/38405331 https://fr.scribd.com/document/862544275/Brief-Overview-of-C89-vs-C99-vs-C11 https://github.com/AnthonyCalandra/modern-c-features > avoid politically charged slogans Facts are not political lies. > Every additional feature impacts the goal of compactness and speed. It's no more OTCC time, my computer could handle more than megabytes. Typical TCC installation is 7 MB, even if it double (14 MB) I guess I can live with that. > Tinycc has a very different purpose than those Isn't compiling C their common purpose ? Why would TCC not being able to build "real" C and just a sub standard of it ? Because of "the goal of compactness and speed" ? Producing unusable code at lighting fast speed still produces unusable code. If you manage to compile C11 code at half "gcc or llvm/clang" speed, it still fits the "speed" goal. Of course compiling 10x time faster a code ("speed") that runs 10x time slower than what "gcc or llvm/clang" do (because no optimization) is questionable. > knows how to implement the _exact_ behavior of those toolchains without > millions of lines of code I not requested for template support, C++30 and all the bells and whistles "gcc or llvm/clang" offer. Just feature full C11, with _Complex. Shouldn't take "millions of lines of code". Btw if I need "compactness and speed", with integrated IDE and debugger, I use: https://www.pellesc.se/ But sure, no "bootstrapping" support because is not open sourced, yet still free of charge. > unknown without reading your thoughts. You don't even have to read between the lines with me, just the actual lines I write is enough. https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/tinycc-devel/2025-08/msg00005.html https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/tinycc-devel/2025-08/msg00044.html > using concrete, technical arguments instead of inexact emotional ones. How can asking for full C11 support be "inexact emotional" argument ? Let me help pointing you to the right "concrete, technical arguments" : https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwtP9e5j1RbpbHF2UXg3dEg2eWs/edit?resourcekey=0-vvVF6Ls0oBlWLZklxaJedQ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C11_(C_standard_revision) https://cppreference.com/c/11 Regards. ----- Mail d'origine ----- De: [email protected] À: [email protected] Envoyé: Thu, 13 Aug 2026 14:30:41 +0200 (CEST) Objet: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Re : Re: ISOC99 _Complex Hello David, On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 12:12:50PM +0200, [email protected] wrote: > The C standard has been bastardized enough during its lifespan, why > not selecting one version (c99, c11) and make it feature complete once > and for all ? Your statement about the quality of the standard development is not connected to any apparent reason to pursue an exact implementation of a certain version (of a "badly developed standard"). > Come on guys, make TCC great again "make <something> great again" has nowadays for many people unfortunately quite negative connotations. Let us possibly avoid politically charged slogans? > with each passing year it should implement many new things Hardly. The most useful things are few and and tinycc already has an impressive collection of them. Every additional feature impacts the goal of compactness and speed. > by now it should be "gcc or llvm/clang" [at a fraction of the size] What would you mean by that? Tinycc has a very different purpose than those and at most it would be to a certain degree compatible, which it already is. > "many other gigantic heavy-weight toolchains" when it surely doesn't > need "millions of lines of code which do implement it" ? I really doubt that someone knows how to implement the _exact_ behavior of those toolchains without millions of lines of code. So you must have meant some _different_ behavior, which is unknown without reading your thoughts. My point is not to try to find out the exact meaning of your text but merely to suggest using concrete, technical arguments instead of inexact emotional ones. Kind regards /tccm _______________________________________________ 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
