z80 holds all 8-bit ZiLOG architectures. That means z80 using the SDCC compiler z180 using the SDCC compiler ez80 which normally uses the ZiLOG compiler, but there is an experimental version of GCC for the ez80
z16 uses only ZiLOG compiler Also consider SH1 This will also require changes to INVIOLABLES.md and the coding standard. I would also recommend a formal vote to assure that you are following the will of the user base and not a personal agenda. There used to be a small but important group of retro computer folk using NuttX; this eliminates support for them. There is language in the INVIOLABLES that is there specifically to protect them from actions like this. I have not heard of anyone using these architectures recently. I would say that only ez80 is active with active development boards. There are occasional developments with z180-like hardware. On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 11:40 PM Xiang Xiao <xiaoxiang781...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ceva we just added this week also supports C99, so we just need to check > avr, misoc, or1k, z16 and z80. > > On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 1:35 PM Petro Karashchenko < > petro.karashche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > In addition I just checked latest GCC with HC12 support is 3.0.4 version. > > It have C99 integrated. Will check with AVR32, but will probably need > some > > help with others. > > > > Best regards, > > Petro > > > > On Sat, Jan 8, 2022, 7:15 AM Petro Karashchenko < > > petro.karashche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > What about inline functions? Those are also a part on C99. > > > > > > Are those old architectures checked by the CI? I mean do we have a > proof > > > that those are still compilable with the latest release? > > > > > > Best regards, > > > Petro > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 8, 2022, 6:37 AM Xiang Xiao <xiaoxiang781...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 6:29 AM Petro Karashchenko < > > >> petro.karashche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hello team, > > >>> > > >>> Recently I mr. @Xiang Xiao <xiaoxiang781...@gmail.com> had a > > discussion > > >>> in one of the PR's related to C89 code compliance. Particularly > > related to > > >>> initializing a structure by field names (designated initializers). > Mr. > > @Xiang > > >>> Xiao <xiaoxiang781...@gmail.com> pointed out that "for the common > code > > >>> it is better to avoid C99 only features". > > >>> I examined the current NuttX code and see that currently common code > is > > >>> far away from C89 already and things like "<stdbool.h>", > > "<inttypes.h>", > > >>> "snprintf", "designated initializers", "__VA_ARGS__" (variadic macro) > > are > > >>> deeply embedded into the code. > > >>> > > >>> > > >> We need separate the features that come from the compiler and the > > >> standard library. Since the libc is provided by NuttX self: > > >> > > >> 1. The header files(e.g.stdbool.h, intttyes.h) and function(e.g. > > >> snprintf) can be used in common code since NuttX can provide the > > >> implementation for all arch even the arch use a very old compiler > > >> 2. The preprocessor (e.g. __VA_ARGS__) or language( designated > > >> initializers) feature need to avoid or incorporate into the > > conditional > > >> macro > > >> > > >> . > > >> > > >>> I would like to come up with the suggestion to make C99 as a > > >>> prerequisite for the compiler that is used to build NuttX code. > > >>> > > >> > > >> As Greg said, if compilers used on all arch supported by NuttX support > > >> C99, there is no reason to limit us to C89. The compiler status is a > > >> keypoint. > > >> > > >> > > >>> > > >>> Best regards, > > >>> Petro > > >>> > > >>> > > >
