[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Implementation of '--' argument
From: |
certanan |
Subject: |
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Implementation of '--' argument |
Date: |
Tue, 18 Apr 2023 05:41:12 +0000 |
I couldn't find any specific reasons as to why '--' was replaced by '-run'
(other than '-run' being implicitly more coherent than '--'). Since there is a
possibility that older scripts still depend on '--', would it be a bad idea to
re-implement it for the sake of backward compatibility, and state its
deprecated status in documentation?
- certanan
------- Original Message -------
On Monday, April 17th, 2023 at 8:18 AM, grischka <grishka@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 17.04.2023 07:59, avih via Tinycc-devel wrote:
>
> > What some random script tries or doesn't try to do is irrelevant.
>
>
> In a case however where the script and the tcc to be used with it
> were written by the same author at the same time, we probably better
> assume that it actually did work.
>
> As it seems the purpose was different though, i.e. the '--' once
> was used with instant execution to separate tcc args from the
> program's args.
>
> See commit here (from almost exactly 20 years ago) where "--" then
> was replaced by "-run" as it still exists.
>
> https://repo.or.cz/tinycc.git/commitdiff/40987541dc683a13cef764aa33f5da21b2660817
>
> > tcc should follow the spec and common practices.
>
>
> ... provided that these do make sense in tcc's own context. In cases
> it better shouldn't.
>
> For example, not to support compilation of files such as -c.c is
> not a problem as long as we assume that such files do not exist.
>
> Other than that tcc currently does support these forms with -run:
> tcc options [files less one] -run last_file arguments
> and also
> tcc "-run options" file arguments (for usage with "#!", see ex4.c)
> and also
> tcc options files -run @ arguments
>
> I'd consider the latter form still rather "unofficial" so we could
> still replace it by
>
> tcc options files -run -- arguments
>
> which might (or might not) look better, in some sense.
>
> What do people think?
>
> -- grischka
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tinycc-devel mailing list
> Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
- [Tinycc-devel] Implementation of '--' argument, certanan, 2023/04/15
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] Implementation of '--' argument, grischka, 2023/04/16
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] Implementation of '--' argument, certanan, 2023/04/16
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] Implementation of '--' argument, Herman ten Brugge, 2023/04/16
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] Implementation of '--' argument, certanan, 2023/04/16
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] Implementation of '--' argument, avih, 2023/04/17
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] Implementation of '--' argument, grischka, 2023/04/17
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] Implementation of '--' argument, ian, 2023/04/17
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] Implementation of '--' argument,
certanan <=
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] Implementation of '--' argument, grischka, 2023/04/18
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] Implementation of '--' argument, certanan, 2023/04/18