[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Using tinycc for full source bootstrapping

From: KHMan
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Using tinycc for full source bootstrapping
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:18:21 +0800
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0

On 9/27/2017 9:54 AM, Michael B. Smith wrote:
You funny.

I've still got hundreds of thousands of lines of C in K&R C. In production. 
Supporting major applications.

You are obviously one of those people who thinks that COBOL is ancient and 
unused, aren't you?

Because I've got millions of production LOC in COBOL.

No offense, but I don't think you understand the real world.

Please look at this line from Rune:
"Compilers written in C89 and understanding C99 hardly exist."

This implies that his intention is to get C99 via a C89 route.

If his ending point is a C99 capable tcc and natively hosted, then it has nothing to do with any amount of legacy code, which can continue to use legacy compilers. I say certain platforms may never move forward because in those cases we are usually at the mercy of proprietary compilers and the companies that make them.

We are not talking about a C89 end point here. C89 folks continue to use their stuff, I'm sure it will be in use past 2100. No problem with that. tcc was already using // comments with nary an outcry for like ages. When was it ever a problem? The only problem this time is that someone wants to bootstrap without any tiny bit of any kind of cross compiling variations.

No offense, but I don't think I have been out of line.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tinycc-devel On Behalf Of KHMan
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 9:41 PM
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Using tinycc for full source bootstrapping

On 9/27/2017 5:30 AM, address@hidden wrote:
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 07:40:32PM +0200, grischka wrote:
Also as source tcc is supposed to be C89, except maybe 'long long'
and maybe some minor things here or there which we could change
indeed if that is wanted (for example usage of compound initializers
in arm-gen.c)

[not a tinycc developer but using / depending on compiler

I would find it awesome if tinycc would restrict its source to C89.

2017 - 1989 = 28.

Twenty-Eight Years. It would be kinda nice to move forward. Will we stick to 
C89 simply because of certain platforms that may never move forward? It's kinda 
like tying stones to one's legs. Or a lowest common denominator scenario.

Compilers written in C89 and understanding C99 hardly exist. This
makes it hard to do a proper bootstrap from the ground with minimal
dependency on existing binaries.

Could you give an example/examples where the starting point for a bootstrap is 
C89 for the foreseeable future? (Not trying to be a nitpick pest, but actual 
data points are usually a good thing, and tcc supports only a few processors, 
so it would be nice to know which one and what platform, or is it some future 

I like Larry's posting. Item 1 can also be done by text processing.

Or make a minimally functioning tcc C89 branch.

Or bootstrap it the Pascal P4 way.

(Offtopic, but tightly related to the full bootstrapping: if tcc would
also become relicensed to BSD-alike, this would not only make such
deep bootstrapping easier but also allow getting to C99 without
relying on GPL, which matters to some people and scenarios)

Thanks for your work on tcc,

Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Selangor, Malaysia

reply via email to

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