Rob:
I appreciate your opinion but I respectfully think that there are things that must be corrected.
Although there are inconsistencies in the documentation, I think the main problem is that the compiler sometimes assumes things and sometimes not.
My humble opinion is best not to assume anything, this will avoid errors and ambiguities.
I disagree with that delegating the blame to the user is the solution. Even the best programmer can make a silly mistake.
You say PEBKAC, I prefer poka-yoke.
Saludos,
Alejandro
--- El mar 19-abr-11, Rob escribió:
On 19 April 2011 02:51, Luis Alejandro Muzzachiodi wrote:
>
> After
many mistyping working with tcc i'm found some issues with the CL's options:
> [references: -> is in , <- is out]
I don't see a problem with any of these.
> 1) Default extensions
> If
> -> tcc -c hello.c
> <- file «hello.o» (object)
> According documentation option -o must be given. But the name and the extension is figured out for default(nice). However
> -> tcc -o hello -c hello.c
> <- file hello (object)
> doesn't adds .o
(even with the option -o present)
> or
> ->tcc -o hello hello.c
> <-file «hello» executable
> Why doesn't adds (or fixs if outfile has other extension) ".exe"? (Windows)
It shouldn't really add the extra bit if you didn't tell it to. What if
you're writing a script and expect it to output to hello instead of
hello.o? Trying to second guess what output file tcc creates, rather
than trusting the -o option is a bad idea.
> 2) Ambiguity
> If
> tcc -o -c hello.c
> -> file -c (executable)
> -c is an option or outfile's name.?.
> By default would be an option (though may be optionally the outfile's name with «tcc -o -c -c hello.c», for example).
PEBKAC - tcc documentation says the output filename is given after -o,
thus it is obeyed. tcc shouldn't have to compensate for users not
understanding command line arguments. Sure, perhaps a warning
could
be omitted if the output begins with a -, but I really don't think tcc should
try to second guess the user.
> 3) Overwriting
> If
> ->tcc -o hello.c -c hello.c
> <- file hello.c (object)
> the original hello.c is missing!.
> Overwrite the outfile's extension (or add if not) with the default extension .o would be a safe alternative.
The user should check this, it's not really tcc's problem, tcc isn't a
file manager, it's a compiler (again, altering the output filename
without telling the user it just unpredictable and plain wrong - what if
it's called from a Makefile to overwrite an older object file?).
> 4) Stdin with run
> According to documentation «-» replaces stdin for infile with the option "run". However,
> ->tcc -
> ->^V
> <-stdin:1: error: unrecognized character \x16
I don't see the problem, ^V is an invalid character for
C.
> or
> -> tcc -
> ->^Z
> <-tcc: error: undefined symbol 'main'.
You haven't defined main, hence the tcc can't complete compilation.
> tcc begin to read stdin.
> Adding some option
> ->tcc - hello.c
> -> ^Z
> <- file a.exe (executable)
> or
> ->tcc - -c
> -> ^Z
> <- file a.out (object)
There's no problem here, in the first one, main() is presumably in
hello.c, and this is linked with the empty file from stdin, outputted to
a.exe.
In the second one, an empty input is compiled into object code,
perfectly legal, and no errors, since there is no linking and hence
main() doesn't need to be resolved.
Those are my personal opinions, but I don't see a problem with
anything you've
said.
Cheers,
Rob.
|