I was explicitely referring to the tradeoff between C-standard compliance and desirable language features related to the feasibility of bootstrapping tinycc: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/tinycc-devel/2026-07/msg00002.html
On 2026-07-07 19:30, Aleksandar Kuktin wrote: > developing a clean software package to run, where by "clean" we merely > mean it's binary form doesn't have more bugs and vulnerabilities than > it's source code form > Which is a distressingly low standard You would be surprised, how often not at least this minimum acceptance criterion was complied with, and how challenging it can become to re-establish a complete system bootstrapping chain as the one from live-bootstrap (i've not yet finished a full review of it, since it covers almost everything fully down the rabbit hole)
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
