Re: [Tinycc-devel] Allow configuration of tcc libraries search path

[Rob Landley]

On 09/30/2011 05:50 PM, grischka wrote:
> Rob Landley wrote:
>> There were a functions named g() and o() which were IMPOSSIBLE to
>> grep for...
> 
> Because you don't know how to use grep.

Because I don't want to drop out of my text editor and grep from the
command line, and doing the search as a regex isn't just "space or tab"
before the function, you can have if(g()<o()) and z=4+g() and there are
such things as function pointers, spaces between the function name and
the parentheses, function declarations "cuddling" the left edge of the
screen so you may need to match start of line...

The part I boggle at is that you honestly believe that single character
global function names are a good idea, which scale to large codebases.
This is one of many reasons why I think your technical judgement sucks.
 The existence of _workarounds_ does not make something a good idea.

>> For the patches in question, I'm pretty sure he _specifically_ told me
>> that he _didn't_ want colon separated search paths.
> 
> I'm pretty sure we never talked about that or anything else such
> specific.

My email archies from that time are on another machine, so I'll assume
you're right and it was somebody else.

>> But I changed the license because the zombie CVS tree was following me,
>> and I didn't want to encourage it:
> 
> You're faking history.

The big gap between 0.9.23 (2005) and 0.9.24 (2008) was the period in
which I started my tree.  After I stopped my tree, tcc has gone two and
a half years without a release.  In june, this mailing list had a grand
total of three messages, one of which was spam.

> When I started with my first commit 2007-10-30:
>  
> http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/tinycc/tinycc/tccelf.c?revision=1.33&view=markup
> 
> http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git/shortlog/2bcc187b1bbb6e3240400652af1a73cd799f250c
> 
> you had already changed license (2007-10-29):
>   http://landley.net/hg/tinycc/shortlog/492

I do a thing, you respond the next day, and you offer this as evidence
that you _weren't_ responding to my actions?

Ok...

> In fact I watched you fighting zombies (while turning the code into a
> broken mess of a battlefield) for quite some time until I decided that
> I want to preserve a tinycc that actually works.

You've already established that you never understood what I was trying
to do.  You already told me this back in 2009:

http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/tinycc-devel/2009-03/msg00026.html

> Fact is that there was a phase where we analyzed your fork and ripped
> as much as we were able to understand. This phase is over now and
> TinyCC is moving on.

This thread restarted because yet another of the bits you failed to
understand turns out, years later, to be relevant.

Look: I don't care.  Have the last word.  Go about your business.  TCC
is no closer to building an unmodified linux kernel/busybox/uclibc today
than it was when tccboot came out seven years ago.  Your project, as
"maintained" by you, will apparently never do those things, and is not
_interested_ in doing those things, thus by my definition it is stalled
and dead and uninteresting.

Have fun with it.

Rob