I am a pretty big power user of tcc even though I rarely contribute, and use it for commercial and private projects alike. I just wanted to give my two cents.
It is crucial for TCC to remain as simple, fast, and have the smallest footprint possible. To be able to embed into a lot of places, it must remain lean for my purposes. I don't have any fundamental problems with adding a feature here or there if it's just a code change, or maybe 20-30 lines of code, but it becomes painful when there's the dead weight of language features no one sane should ever be using in the first place. As a power user, my recommendation would be to only implement something like C89 fully, and whatever features "make sense" to implement from newer C standards. Mature codebases already use compiler-specific work-arounds and tweaks, so being "fully C11 compliant" doesn't actually buy you anything. And for my purposes is a strict loss of suitability (because of the added code burdin). I think TCC drew the right balance so far and I'm grateful to those in power for keeping the features out. I am so thankful this philosophy has been ruling so far. I urge you please do not become obsessed with some sort of completionist death march. Charles Charles On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 12:46 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
