I agree. When I need an everything compiler I use GCC, otherwise I use
TCC.
Jordan
-------- Original Message --------
SUBJECT:
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Re : Re: VERSION Number 1.0 - C11 vs. C99
DATE:
2025-08-11 16:31
FROM:
Charles Lohr <[email protected]>
TO:
[email protected]
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
_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
