tinycc-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Use tcc to make embedded just-in-time compile/interpr


From: Stefano Zaglio
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Use tcc to make embedded just-in-time compile/interpreter
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 21:18:23 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111108 Thunderbird/3.1.16

 I see one reason to avoid C as a scripting language: error handling. Most 
scripting
 A user which only gets a SIGSEGV on error may be frustrated.

After 20 years spent to learn and re-learn, write and re-write , how doing the same things with different p. language, I think that using experience to avoid some errors using C, is not so
expensive how we can immagine.

Or are you saing that TCC cannot manage

signal(SIGSEGV, my_signal_handler)

?
and GDB cannot stop on line that has generated the signal?


I remember an old

Il 19/12/2011 07:24, Basile Starynkevitch ha scritto:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 22:01:32 +0100
Benoit Gschwind<address@hidden>  wrote:

On 17/12/2011 19:33, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:31:31 +0100
Benoit Gschwind<address@hidden>  wrote:

Hello,

I would like to create an embedded C interpreter/compiler.
[...]
Other have answered about libtcc.h, but why do you want the user to write code 
in C
specifically (as opposed to some higher-level scripting language)?
Why not? for performance, for lightness, for sport. Why use some new
language when everything is ok with an existing good language?

I see one reason to avoid C as a scripting language: error handling. Most 
scripting
language gives you a toplevel loop and return to it on error, this is not so 
easily
possible in C (unless the C is generated by your language implementation).

A user which only gets a SIGSEGV on error may be frustrated.

Cheers.





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]