I agree with avih’s key point: “Preferring to have a release which can be called stable is also something which many would like to see and have expressed this wish multiple times.”
It’s been my wish for many years as well. TinyCC is rightly admired for its small size, simplicity, and extremely fast compilation speed — qualities that make it a unique and valuable tool in the compiler landscape. I believe its impact could be even greater with a regularly updated, stable release cycle. I know the work is done by dedicated volunteers, and that bug fixes take time, but a stable milestone would be a huge win for both the project and its users. —JM > On Aug 12, 2025, at 12:59 PM, avih via Tinycc-devel <[email protected]> > wrote: > > TinyCC is not a suckless project, has no relation to it, and owes it > nothing. I don't see how/why anything suckless should affect TinyCC. > > That being said, this whole discussion of what to support first is > mostly moot. Progress is being made by volunteers, with some > maintainers who might revert or fix some commits if they don't align > with the project's goals. > > These goals appear to be code quality, speed, size, and standard > compliance, in no particular order. Maintainers and contributors > are aware of the standards, and progress is being made towards those > standards (c99, c11, whatever) as time and ability permits. > > If some contributor is unsure whether to add support for a c99 > feature or a newer version feature, then personally I'd like to see > earlier versions supported first, but I can't tell people what to > do, so ultimately it depends on individuals and how they choose to > spend their time. > > Preferring to have a release which can be called stable is also > something which many would like to see and have expressed this wish > multiple times in this mailing list, but again, it depends on the > main maintainer to make that happen. > > avih > > > > On Tuesday, August 12, 2025 at 07:33:12 PM GMT+3, Страхиња Радић > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Дана 25/08/11 09:24AM, [email protected] написа: >> Totally agree, yet C11 should be the "target standard", not C99 which >> lacks new refinements for modern coding. > > This alienates all the suckless software, for the sake of...? Just for > the heck of it? > > C99 is the last good version of C, before it gradually started turning > into C++. Ah well, time to fork. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
