On 09.02.2024 01:44, Eric Raible wrote:
> Then, instead of adding a new API to support the > "run without state" > option better (as you suggest), we could just as well remove that > option entirely, and have a simpler and more "lovely" API then ... > > What do you think? > I think removing that option entirely would be fine. Others might disagree. But if we _keep_ that option, then we should have tcc_unprotect(). With respect to "tweak the state a bit", that sounds risky if we're really trying to stabilize for a release.
Ok, I like it to remove stuff: https://repo.or.cz/tinycc.git/blob/b671fc0594625eb5ac147ec83be6d0c1fc1a6ad5:/libtcc.h
On an unrelated note, there was a commit a while back that proposed putting more into TCCState, such that no global state at all exists. I am in favor of that proposal, which kind of implies an even bigger TCCState.
Yeah, answer is always the same: - eyes would hurt from seeing "s1->" all over the place - finger would hurt for those who'd like to contribute - not to mention what if you'd try to rebase some patch that you already have See also https://repo.or.cz/tinycc.git/commitdiff/af686a796bda94dc92fc3ad140ef438dafa08950 --- grischka _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel