> On Wednesday, July 31, 2019, 8:55:18 PM GMT+3, Christian JULLIEN > <eli...@orange.fr> wrote: > > This my THIRD attempt to reply to this thread since Jul, 26. The > two prev. attempts never reached the list. Hope this one will work > and go to the list!
It did, at least to me (but I was addressed). FWIW, I don't recall seeing prior replies from you, though I also don't see my reply from today at: https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/tinycc-devel/2019-07/index.html But the fact that you got it probably means it got through. Not sure what's up with the list manager... > As I said previously (basically the same as Michael): ... > As I'm aware of, the win32 port is not targeted to support POSIX > applications. While getopt is great, it introduces a third category > and the gap from POSIX is huge. For example, among others, I would > love to have mmap. Indeed. Though when I now think about it again, I'd say the definition of tcc on Windows would be "like MinGW, but smaller, and extensible to some extent with additional MinGW headers". FWIW, MinGW does include getopt.h at its root include dir (I assume implemented at glibc). > That said, if the group decides that's a good idea, I will not protest > but, in this case put getopt.h in a new directory like include/posix > to make it clear. Hmm... and make it a default include path? otherwise `#include <getopt.h>` would not work out of the box, which kind of defeats its purpose and usefullness IMO. But anyway, indeed the main question to answer first and foremost is what's the desirable scope of tcc on windows, and once it's answered clearly, then hopefully the rest would be easy to derive. Avi
_______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel