Am 20.12.2013 um 16:22 schrieb Anthony J. Bentley :
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>> There is also the question of finding a new C99 optimizing
>> compiler written properly in C of course.
>>
>> tinycc is interesting. It would require just a few basic
>> optimizatio
> “Firm is a C-library that provides a graph-based intermediate
> representation, optimizations, and assembly code generation suitable
> for use in compilers.”
>
I don't know if this is useful for this topic, but I have written a
parser for C that can be used as the base for some project.
Regard
Paul Onyschuk dixit:
>(those can be copied from Heirloom or from older version of Groff -
Or my version from AT&T nroff, which got bugfixes in the
else-part of GNU groff specifics. I’ve got them in CVS as
src/share/tmac/ (not /usr/lib/ but /usr/share/ as per the
standard modern-BSD filesystem hie
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:26:42 + (UTC)
Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>
> Oh, they’re buggy? Damn. I had hoped for a ditroff
> implementation eventually.
>
Here [1] you can find links/references to every existing *roff
implementation. Still that doesn't leave many options.
Troff from Plan9 is inte
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 06:12:45PM +0100, Paul Onyschuk wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:31:26 +0100
> Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>
> >
> > Oh! What openbsd uses for its man page terminal renderer? I'm
> > stuck with the buggy heirloom tools.
> >
>
> Mandoc aka mdocml [1].
Thanks. I'll see how it c
(Wondering about the topic, no idea why one would want
to use C++ anyway… but… *shrug*)
Sylvain BERTRAND dixit:
>> This is valid question on other hand e.g. base OpenBSD is C++ free for
>> some time AFAIK (after the removal of groff). Idea of minimal set of
Same for MirBSD (removal of GNU groff
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 17:31:26 +0100
Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>
> Oh! What openbsd uses for its man page terminal renderer? I'm
> stuck with the buggy heirloom tools.
>
Mandoc aka mdocml [1].
>
> ARM64 is on its way, which will require a backport in gcc 4.7.x.
>
We will see how it turns out. If
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 11:36:17AM -0500, Bobby Powers wrote:
> Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > Since its 4.8 version, gcc cannot bootstrap with a C
> > compiler/minimal runtime, it needs a c++ compiler and runtime.
> > Making gcc 4.7 series the last "clean" gcc.
>
> I think it is amusing that you thi
On 20/12/2013, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> That's very bad. Linux kernel devs have not accepted patches to
> allow compilation with alternative C compilers??
Well, Linus is no gcc fan [1], so they might, if a ready alternative
were available.
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2006/11/28/206
Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> Since its 4.8 version, gcc cannot bootstrap with a C
> compiler/minimal runtime, it needs a c++ compiler and runtime.
> Making gcc 4.7 series the last "clean" gcc.
I think it is amusing that you think that gcc 4.7 is clean and good,
because it is written in C. From my un
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 08:22:03AM -0700, Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> > There is also the question of finding a new C99 optimizing
> > compiler written properly in C of course.
> >
> > tinycc is interesting. It would require just a few bas
Anthony J. Bentley wrote:
> I’ve been curious about libfirm and cparser but haven't looked at them
> closely yet.
I did work a bit with cparser/libfirm and found the following:
* It took about 2 times longer to compile than gcc
* There was no x64 support yet
* It is not developed very actively, a
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 04:35:36PM +0100, Paul Onyschuk wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:49:43 +0100
> Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>
> > Is there any remaining good c++ compiler/runtime which can
> > boostrap using a C compiler/minimal runtime?
> >
> > Since, it's near impossible to re-write/unroll a
Tcc is actively maintained. Just check the mailing list or the git repo.
> On 20 Dec 2013, at 16:35, Paul Onyschuk wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:49:43 +0100
> Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
>
>> Is there any remaining good c++ compiler/runtime which can
>> boostrap using a C compiler/minimal ru
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:49:43 +0100
Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> Is there any remaining good c++ compiler/runtime which can
> boostrap using a C compiler/minimal runtime?
>
> Since, it's near impossible to re-write/unroll all the
> "mandatory" c++ components in C quickly (harfbuzz,
> gecko/webkit...
On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 5:49 AM, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
> There is also the question of finding a new C99 optimizing
> compiler written properly in C of course.
>
> tinycc is interesting. It would require just a few basic
> optimization passes to make it a reasonable alternative to gcc.
>
> There
Is there any remaining good c++ compiler/runtime which can
boostrap using a C compiler/minimal runtime?
Since its 4.8 version, gcc cannot bootstrap with a C
compiler/minimal runtime, it needs a c++ compiler and runtime.
Making gcc 4.7 series the last "clean" gcc.
I heard about openwatcom (but it
17 matches
Mail list logo
