[Tinycc-devel] Re : Re: TinyCC does not accept variable-length static qualifier for function parameter arrays

[david . koch]

As stated here : https://bellard.org/tcc/

"TCC is heading torward full ISOC99 compliance"

Hence it is recognized as not being fully compliant.

You might want to compare with LCC :

https://drh.github.io/lcc/

The Pelles C compiler is base upon :

http://www.smorgasbordet.com/pellesc/

Regards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C99

----- Mail d'origine -----
De: Michael Matz <matz.tcc@frakked.de>
À: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Envoyé: Tue, 01 Mar 2022 15:55:08 +0100 (CET)
Objet: Re: [Tinycc-devel] TinyCC does not accept variable-length static 
qualifier for function parameter arrays

Hello,

On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, John Scott wrote:

> On Mon, 2022-02-28 at 09:25 +0100, david.koch@libertysurf.fr wrote:
>> Gcc allows this, but Gcc is not conformant and creates "extensions" as it 
>> see fit.
> This is not a GCC extension; it's my understanding that this is pure
> C99. N2310 [1] (a C17 draft) 6.7.6.3 says
>
> A declaration of a parameter as "array of type" shall be adjusted to
> "qualified pointer to type", where the type qualifiers (if any) are
> those specified within the [ and ] of the array type derivation. If the
> keyword static also appears within the [ and ] of the array type
> derivation, then for each call to the function, the value of the
> corresponding actual argument shall provide access to the first element
> of an array with at least as many elements as specified by the size
> expression.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't argc+1 an expression?

You are correct, it's ISO C and tcc isn't conforming in rejecting this. 
Patches welcome :-)


Ciao,
Michael.

>
> [1] http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2310.pdf
>

_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel