Re: [Tinycc-devel] Alternative tokens for C-application

[Ben Bacarisse]

Michael Matz  writes:

> Ben, have you finished the patch?  If so, please post here, have you
> measured compile time to be unaffected (would be bad if such a seldom
> used feature would cause a slowdown)?

I've not measure but I'd be surprised if there were much impact.
However it's not finished.  All I did was the input side: allowing the
new punctuators to be recognised for what they signify (which is
probably the part people who want them care about), but the output of
tcc -E shows the "canonical" symbols and they "stringify" as those as
well.

I'm not sure of the cost/benefit of finishing it off!

-- 
Ben.

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

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Alternative tokens for C-application

[Michael Matz]

Hi,

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, Мельников Алексей wrote:


--> Urgs.  Are you really using digraphs in any production code?
--> (Yes, tcc tries to support c99, but, well, I mean, digraphs? Seriously? If 
you use EBCDIC you have more serious problems with tcc I guess, and if you don't, 
why use digraphs? Not as bad as trigraphs, but still.)

I am searching new ways to use tcc for web developing. And I think 
digraphs syntax are combined better with html tags.


I see, fair enough.  I'll try to refrain from going "huh?" regarding tcc 
plus web developing (and that <> are special to html and part of every 
digraph), except in this sentence :)


Ben, have you finished the patch?  If so, please post here, have you 
measured compile time to be unaffected (would be bad if such a seldom 
used feature would cause a slowdown)?



Ciao,
Michael.___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Alternative tokens for C-application

[Мельников Алексей]

--> Urgs.  Are you really using digraphs in any production code?
--> (Yes, tcc tries to support c99, but, well, I mean, digraphs? Seriously? If 
you use EBCDIC you have more serious problems with tcc I guess, and if you 
don't, why use digraphs? Not as bad as trigraphs, but still.)

I am searching new ways to use tcc for web developing. And I think  digraphs 
syntax are combined better with html tags.
Thank You for Your interesting in my posts.

Alex Melnikov



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

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Alternative tokens for C-application

[Michael Matz]

Hi,

On Sun, 6 Mar 2016, Мельников Алексей wrote:


I hope TCC already has supported some C99 options:
(Online documents "3.2 ISOC99 extensions").
And I have found this options (C99 tokens) was discussed several years ago:

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/tinycc-devel/2007-05/msg00067.html

Yep.  Section 7.9, and required in freestanding implementations.  At
least it's easy to support.  For a trickier situation, I don't think
tcc supports C99 alternate punctuators yet (section 6.4.6):
 <:  :>  <%  %>  %:  %:%:
Note that they have to retain these spellings under stringization, so
it's presumably more than just a quick tweak to the parsing code.
 -Dave Dodge
---

Please, could You send me the patch? Thank You in advance.


Urgs.  Are you really using digraphs in any production code?

(Yes, tcc tries to support c99, but, well, I mean, digraphs?  Seriously? If you 
use EBCDIC you have more serious problems with tcc I guess, and if you don't, 
why use digraphs?  Not as bad as trigraphs, but still.)



Ciao,
Michael.___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Alternative tokens for C-application

[Мельников Алексей]

I hope TCC already has supported some C99 options:
(Online documents "3.2 ISOC99 extensions").
And I have found this options (C99 tokens) was discussed several years ago:

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/tinycc-devel/2007-05/msg00067.html

Yep.  Section 7.9, and required in freestanding implementations.  At
least it's easy to support.  For a trickier situation, I don't think
tcc supports C99 alternate punctuators yet (section 6.4.6):
  <:  :>  <%  %>  %:  %:%:
Note that they have to retain these spellings under stringization, so
it's presumably more than just a quick tweak to the parsing code.
  -Dave Dodge
---

Please, could You send me the patch? Thank You in advance.

Alex Melnikov

06.03.2016, 01:34, "Ben Bacarisse" :
> Мельников Алексей  writes:
>
>>  Excuse me, could one added to tcc alternative tokes like that:
>>  <% for {
>>  %> for }
>>  <: for [
>>  :> for ]
>>  %: for #
>>  %:%: for ##
>>  How hard it is to do? Who can I ask for developing?
>
> It's not particularly hard. having already done a little work with tcc
> I had a look, and I've got a working after only about half an hour.
> There would have to be more testing and possibly some other alterations
> would be required but it looks like low-hanging C99 fruit. It tcc
> aiming to implement C99?
>
> (I can send you a patch even if this never gets into tcc proper.)
>
> --
> Ben.

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

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Alternative tokens for C-application

[Ben Bacarisse]

Мельников Алексей  writes:

> Excuse me, could one added to tcc alternative tokes like that:
> <% for {
> %> for }
> <: for [
> :> for ]
> %: for #
> %:%: for ##
> How hard it is to do? Who can I ask for developing?

It's not particularly hard.  having already done a little work with tcc
I had a look, and I've got a working after only about half an hour.
There would have to be more testing and possibly some other alterations
would be required but it looks like low-hanging C99 fruit.  It tcc
aiming to implement C99?

(I can send you a patch even if this never gets into tcc proper.)

-- 
Ben.

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

[Tinycc-devel] Alternative tokens for C-application

[Мельников Алексей]

Hello.

Excuse me, could one added to tcc alternative tokes like that:
<% for {
%> for }
<: for [
:> for ]
%: for #
%:%: for ##
How hard it is to do? Who can I ask for developing?
Thank You in advance.

Alex Melnikov

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