[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Tinycc-devel] OT (Re: modern c++ compiler written in C)
From: |
u-tcc-uepj |
Subject: |
Re: [Tinycc-devel] OT (Re: modern c++ compiler written in C) |
Date: |
Sat, 16 May 2015 13:07:24 +0200 |
[Continuing on this thread which seems somewhat relevant to tcc even
though the lanugage discussed is not what tcc implements.]
On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 11:49:57AM +0200, Christian Jullien wrote:
> What
> especially annoys me with CFront is that it implements a pre-ISO C++. There
> is chance that, sooner than later, your program will compile and/or behave
> correctly only if compiled by CFront.
Agreed, that's bad, the implemented dialect should be ideally a
strict subset of the standard (unfortunately the standards are also a
moving target). On the positive side, a free license for the compiler
would make is highly probable that one could always compile
a program by cfront or whatever.
> You can perfectly well write C++ a programs without template, namespace,
> exceptions, RTTI or any standard C++ lib and have NO performance penalty at
> all compared to C. Without virtual methods, a class is just a POD.
> This way, you can define your own C++ subset based on standard C++.
Sure, but I want to also avoid the dependency on the _big_ toolchain (which
is supposed to grok the whole of C++).
> In a sense, it is the same as if you were saying that, for simple things,
> there is a need for K&R only C subset, for example not supporting prototypes
> or const.
Indeed, a good comparison. Let's say this way: Yes, I would be willing
to give up the prototypes and const if the compiler would become an order
of magnitude smaller and faster. (Hmm wonder if a K&R tcc-lookalike can be
made to fit into 64K code + 64K data? _That_ would be great :)
Not that I would use it for every project, but sometimes - surely.
> In order to not pollute this list, I'll probably stop to comment on this
> thread.
Nobody complained yet and I feel the topic is not totally foreign
for the tiny C compiler list. If not otherwise, cfront can nowadays
be called a "tiny C++ compiler" or compared to the "obfuscated C[++]
compiler" :)
Rune
- [Tinycc-devel] OT (Re: modern c++ compiler written in C), (continued)
- [Tinycc-devel] OT (Re: modern c++ compiler written in C), u-tcc-uepj, 2015/05/15
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] OT (Re: modern c++ compiler written in C), sylware, 2015/05/15
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] OT (Re: modern c++ compiler written in C), u-tcc-uepj, 2015/05/15
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] OT (Re: modern c++ compiler written in C), Sergey Korshunoff, 2015/05/16
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] OT (Re: modern c++ compiler written in C), u-tcc-uepj, 2015/05/16
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] OT (Re: modern c++ compiler written in C), Sergey Korshunoff, 2015/05/16
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] OT (Re: modern c++ compiler written in C), Christian Jullien, 2015/05/16
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] OT (Re: modern c++ compiler written in C), Sergey Korshunoff, 2015/05/16
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] OT (Re: modern c++ compiler written in C), u-tcc-uepj, 2015/05/16
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] OT (Re: modern c++ compiler written in C), Christian Jullien, 2015/05/16
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] OT (Re: modern c++ compiler written in C),
u-tcc-uepj <=
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] OT (Re: modern c++ compiler written in C), Sean Conner, 2015/05/16
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] a usable C subset (was: modern c++ compiler written in C), u-tcc-uepj, 2015/05/17
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] a usable C subset (was: modern c++ compiler written in C), Federico Bianchi, 2015/05/17
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] a usable C subset (was: modern c++ compiler written in C), u-tcc-uepj, 2015/05/17
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] modern c++ compiler written in C, u-tcc-uepj, 2015/05/15
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] modern c++ compiler written in C, u-tcc-uepj, 2015/05/15