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

[Christian Jullien]

I have the impression that this discussion is more philosophic than
pragmatic.

Today tcc compiles and runs on limited number of systems/processors which
are AFAIK:

1) fully supported on Linux on x86/x64/arm/aarch64
2) fully supported on Windows x86/x64
3) Unclear or not fully supported on *BSD and macOS, My different attempts
on FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD all failed from one reason or another

On source code I see also C67 but I have seen no discussions on it for
years.

That said, for 1, 3, standard C compiler that comes with OS supports C98 for
nearly 20 years.
For 2, VC++, clang, gcc, mingw32, Cygwin support also C98 for nearly 20
years.

As tcc developer time and resources are limited, except for the fun, who can
tell me a **real in use system** that needs to bootstrap tcc with a C
compiler that only accepts C89?

Of course, when compiled, I fully agree that tcc should accept C89 to
support legacy code that no one wants to change.

If one finds, *still in production*,  a very exotic system that supports
only C89, the solution is to cross compile tcc on, says Linux, then use this
version to bootstrap tcc natively. For years, gcc has the nice feature to
make Canadian cross-compilation that I once use to generate a working gcc on
Solaris sparc from Linux x86.

So my conclusion is that I see no reasons to limit ourselves to C89.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:address@hidden
On Behalf Of KHMan
Sent: mercredi 27 septembre 2017 04:38
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Using tinycc for full source bootstrapping

On 9/27/2017 10:26 AM, Michael B. Smith wrote:
> As I read your comments, especially these:
>
>>> 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.
>
> You were suggesting to abandon the "old" or "legacy" support.

Context.

The discussion was on tcc bootstrapping.

The question I was posing was whether tcc should be tied to a commitment to
a 28 year old standard.

English can be a very ambiguous language. A tiny thought can lead to tunnel
vision down one of many supposedly plausible paths.


> If I misunderstood, please forgive me.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tinycc-devel On Behalf Of KHMan
> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 10:18 PM
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Using tinycc for full source bootstrapping
> [snipped everything]


-- 
Cheers,
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Selangor, Malaysia


_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel