Strake wrote:
On 20/12/2013, Rob wrote:
https://github.com/bobrippling/ucc-c-compiler
Why are you rewriting libc?
I think calling it a libc rewrite does it too much justice. When I
started out I needed something I could statically link against that
would be simple to debug, and had compatib
On 20/12/2013, Rob wrote:
> https://github.com/bobrippling/ucc-c-compiler
Why are you rewriting libc?
Bobby Powers dixit:
>I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Plan 9 C compiler. There seems
Hm, does it support something other than ECOFF output now?
The assembler part is also very foreign…
I’ve also got one more: nwcc (Nils Weller’s C compiler).
bye,
//mirabilos
--
In traditional syntax ' i
Hello,
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Plan 9 C compiler. There seems
to be a copy here: https://code.google.com/p/ken-cc/ , it is also
built as part of the Go build process. And I'm sure it is available
elsewhere. Is there something glaring I am missing?
yours,
Bobby
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:06:07 + (GMT)
Rob wrote:
>
> I suppose if you can get a stable version of GCC, like you say, the
> platform ABIs aren't going to change, but I can see certain things
> from C11 coming into libraries, such as atomics. Of course glibc
> (should) support all the way back
Paul Onyschuk wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:49:43 +0100
Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
There is also the question of finding a new C99 optimizing
compiler written properly in C of course.
Anything else?
On one hand, you can use pretty old GCC and most of C codebase will
compile just fine (OpenBSD
