Hello, > The 0.9 version label is the maintainer telling everyone that tcc is not ready
No wonder why TCC lost its appeal in the meantime. > serious use until 1.0 Then tell me what should we put into "serious use" ? > As slimcc already supports C23, is that your favorite? No, currently GCC is because it compiles for my targets and support C11, which TCC doesn't. > Who is the build master to track this? Dunno. > Who is building software with tcc on ARM Cortex-M? No me, but since there is support for ARM targets, anyone could theoretically, provided the suitable C extensions and features were available to do so. > I merely asked what is needed to bring tcc to version 1.0. Again, what the version bump for ? Just to feel at ease with a round number or the compiler having crossed a REAL milestone with a complete C standard support ? Then which one should it be ? 25+ yo C99 or 14+ yo C11 ? Asking for C17 or C23 it a bit too much to ask for considering TCC's audience though. Regards. ----- Mail d'origine ----- De: Robin Rowe <[email protected]> À: [email protected] Envoyé: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 02:30:49 +0200 (CEST) Objet: Re: [Tinycc-devel] VERSION Number 1.0 - C11 vs. C99 On 8/10/2025 2:36 PM, [email protected] wrote: > https://www.reddit.com/r/C_Programming/comments/1g0fqgw/am_i_the_only_one_on_this_planet/ > Anyone else using TCC for "serious" development ? Are we confusing cause and effect? The 0.9 version label is the maintainer telling everyone that tcc is not ready, a warning against serious use until 1.0. > Let's say Pelles C, SDCC, chibicc, cproc, LCC (C89), vbcc (C99), kefir, > slimcc, ... > If TCC was up to their tasks, they would have used it instead of these > alternatives. Interesting. Are you recommending these over tcc? As slimcc already supports C23, is that your favorite? > Or can compile but doesn't behave like GCC : > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/79219698/why-does-tinycc-fail-to-link-standard-c-runtime-functions-in-32-bit-mode-but-wor Has the patch provided by this reddit post been integrated? Who is the build master to track this? > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/75739020/c-code-compiles-and-runs-under-tiny-c-compiler-but-it-does-not-run-under-gcc Seems not a tcc issue. UB code bug. >> What micro-controllers does tcc support? > ARM (STM32, etc) ? RISC-V (ESP32, etc) ? Interesting. Who is building software with tcc on ARM Cortex-M? Or, with RISC-V ESP32-C3 or ESP32-C6? > While new and up to date C standard are published, you request to stay on a > 25+ year old standard. Have I proposed anything? I merely asked what is needed to bring tcc to version 1.0. Robin _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
