Path: ...!news.nobody.at!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Paul Edwards" <mutazilah@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: 80386 C compiler
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 10:48:10 +0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <vi3ctf$35r67$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vhvbhf$28opb$1@dont-email.me> <vhvsm9$2bmq9$1@dont-email.me> <vi0dt1$2el7m$1@dont-email.me> <20241125101701.894@kylheku.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2024 03:48:16 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="7009f1b756bbba87d18bf915335fb9ab";
	logging-data="3337415"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+BJPKYOtuunecqF7qsOKOvKG4uZw+483s="
Cancel-Lock: sha1:s3FC7S7xMsiZjeEc9J7lazLJS5k=
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Bytes: 3119

"Kaz Kylheku" <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> wrote in message
news:20241125101701.894@kylheku.com...
> On 2024-11-24, Paul Edwards <mutazilah@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "Janis Papanagnou" <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:vhvsm9$2bmq9$1@dont-email.me...
> >> On 24.11.2024 15:00, Paul Edwards wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I have been after a public domain C compiler for decades.
> >> > [...] I'm after C90 written in C90.
> >>
> >> Why formulate the latter condition if you can bootstrap?
> >> (Did you mean; written in a "C" not more recent than C90?)
> >
> > Yes - written in C90 so that it can be maintained with
> > just knowledge of C90.
> >
> > And also written in C90 so that it is written naturally
> > for a C90 programmer, not using a subset of C90
>
> But, do yourself a favor and, have it as an extension to allow
> non-constant expressions to allow block scoped aggregates:
>
>  void fn(int a)
>  {
>    int x[3] = { foo(), bar(), a }; /* not in C90 */
>
> (You don't have to use it in the source code of the thing,
> so it can be boostrapped by other C90 compilers without
> the extension.)
>
> Also, pin down the truncation behavior of / and % to match C99.
> (Though, again, without relying on that in the C90 source
> of the compiler.)
>
> Define the behavior of a [0] array at the end of a struct,
> so that the C90 struct hack is "blessed" in your implementation.
> The C99 flexible array member cannot be used, after all.
> You can have it so that [0] has the same semantics as C99 []
> in that role.

I don't have any such code in PDOS, so it is very unlikely I
will be doing anything along those lines.

My goal is to get the existing PDOS source code to compile.
Plus the tools, including the new C compiler. So that there is
a completely public domain infrastructure that can be used as
a base to produce all of the above, and more.

If I was to enhance it to do the above to meet some market
need, it is more likely that it would be a commercial derivative
rather than being public domain.

BFN. Paul.