> but simplicity is more important. And yet if ye don't want to use GNU
> syntax for inline assembly, then people would have to
> write code to comply with scc rules.
I think this force them to write these parts in assembler directly,
and it opens the door to the few cases where it can be needed.
> .S or .asm actually, .as is ActionScript. If my two cents are counted,
I know several toolchains that use .as for assembler file.
Regards,
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I read three words, but thanks anyway :)
> I guess there are a lot of specific things about every single uC that
> would make it worth one's while to create a highly customized compiler
> for it.
Somewhat agree. Code generation, optimisation pa
I read three words, but thanks anyway :)
I guess there are a lot of specific things about every single uC that
would make it worth one's while to create a highly customized compiler
for it.
why don't you just use kencc btw?
On Wed, 20 Apr 2016, hiro <23h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> you seem to prepare writing your own operating system, but there is
> already losethos, i don't recommend redoing this fine work.
One word: microcontrollers
k...@shike2.com wrote:
This is my way of thinking, because if you need asm, then your code is
not portable at all, and then it is better to move the asm to a
function and coded it directly in asm in a .as file.
.S or .asm actually, .as is ActionScript. If my two cents are counted,
I suppose a
you seem to prepare writing your own operating system, but there is
already losethos, i don't recommend redoing this fine work.
On 4/20/16, k...@shike2.com wrote:
>> inline assembly is irrelevant and not needed.
>
> This is my way of thinking, because if you need asm, then your code is
> not port
> inline assembly is irrelevant and not needed.
This is my way of thinking, because if you need asm, then your code is
not portable at all, and then it is better to move the asm to a
function and coded it directly in asm in a .as file. I am open to
discuss it, because I can understand a few cases
inline assembly is irrelevant and not needed.
> There is no such thing as GNU syntax. gas supports both syntaxes;
> AT&T is the de facto standard.
I meant the GNU syntax for inline assembly, not the syntax of
the assembler itself. Something that I could accept is for example:
__asm("...");
or
__asm {
...
We don't want to follow all the extensions of GNU, this is for sure.
If you try to be compatible with GCC at the end you become GCC. If
the big project is C99 or POSIX the our target is begin able to
compile it. If the big project is Linux/GCC,then we don't care
(if you want gcc, you know where to
> I forgot to ask, will scc be intended for
> building something big, say, GTK+ programmes,
> or maybe even the kernel? And what about
> inline assembly and compiling assembly code
> itself?
We don't want to follow all the extensions of GNU, this is for sure.
If you try to be compatible with GCC
I forgot to ask, will scc be intended for
building something big, say, GTK+ programmes,
or maybe even the kernel? And what about
inline assembly and compiling assembly code
itself?
/ Mitt
> I tried to ran cc2 from the directory, but it still hangs.
> Even if I simply try "./cc2". The same applies to
> cc2-amd64-sysv and cc2-i386-sysv.
yes, it is logical because cc2 reads the input data from stdin, so if
you execute it without piping into it the output of cc1 then it will
wait forev
Louis Santillan wrote:
The C version of Let's Build a Compiler is here [0][1]. There are
multiple versions/recent updates by people other than Peter Gray's
original translation [2][3][4]. The original/Pascal version by Jack
Crenshaw is here [5]. I've also been reading Wirth's original Pascal
c
The C version of Let's Build a Compiler is here [0][1]. There are
multiple versions/recent updates by people other than Peter Gray's
original translation [2][3][4]. The original/Pascal version by Jack
Crenshaw is here [5]. I've also been reading Wirth's original Pascal
compiler writing books & w
> I think compilers are way over my level, but it's a subject that interest me
> and
> clang is massive c++, gcc is nonstandard bloat, tcc doesnt seem sufficient,
> so I wanna help.
There are a lot of places were helping without having a big idea about
compilers. The scc driver is one of the pl
k...@shike2.com wrote:
[...]
Thanks for the info! I ran "make multi; make install", however...
The error that should not happen is the error related to cc2. Do you
have it in $PREFIX/libexec/scc/?
I tried to ran cc2 from the directory, but it still hangs.
Even if I simply try "./cc2". The s
> Yes, it is in a very early stage. Cc1 is really advanced, and it can
> parse and generate intermediate code for almost all C90, and about a
> 90% of C99. Cc2 is only a draft. I had an advanced version of cc2
> for z80, but I discarded it and I began from the beginning with the
> idea of having
Hi,
> I usually compile suckless software with tcc,
> but it fails at static linking, so I found myself
> cloning scc.
Scc is still a work in progress. It is far of being
completed and being able to compile programs.
> I changed PREFIX in config.mk to /usr/local and
> successfully installed it.
Hi,
I usually compile suckless software with tcc,
but it fails at static linking, so I found myself
cloning scc.
I changed PREFIX in config.mk to /usr/local and
successfully installed it. First, what are cc1 and cc2?
Also, I couldn't find a man page. Compiling Hello World
with cc1 says it can't
22 matches
Mail list logo
