[Top][All Lists]

[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" :)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]