Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bart <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: question about linker
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 11:57:40 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <vjbunl$1h46m$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vi54e9$3ie0o$1@dont-email.me>
 <87frnbt9jn.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <viaqh0$nm7q$1@dont-email.me>
 <877c8nt255.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <viasv4$nm7q$2@dont-email.me>
 <vibr1l$vvjf$1@dont-email.me> <vic73f$1205f$1@dont-email.me>
 <20241129142810.00007920@yahoo.com> <vicfra$13nl4$1@dont-email.me>
 <20241129161517.000010b8@yahoo.com> <vicque$15ium$2@dont-email.me>
 <vid110$16hte$1@dont-email.me> <vifcll$1q9rj$1@dont-email.me>
 <vifiib$1s07p$1@dont-email.me> <viht27$2hgg1$3@dont-email.me>
 <vjb8e9$1973q$1@paganini.bofh.team> <20241211111856.00005d14@yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 12:57:42 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="290934312172764f7b8d04cf684db75b";
	logging-data="1609942"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18lILmE+C7AOrTBnv7BAulS"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KiGTMDiCsxaSYm1dj+zrKQnvgTk=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <20241211111856.00005d14@yahoo.com>
Bytes: 3600

On 11/12/2024 09:18, Michael S wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 05:37:15 -0000 (UTC)
> antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) wrote:

>> You are exagerating and that does not help communication.  In this
>> group there were at least one serious poster claiming to write code
>> depending only on features from older C standard.
> 
> For some definition of "serious".
> 
>> People like this
>> presumably would care if some "toy" compiler discoverd non-compliance.
>> Concerning tcc, they have explicit endorsment from gawk developer:
>> he likes compile speed and says that gawk compiles fine using tcc.
>>
>> In may coding I use gcc extentions when I feel that there is
>> substantial gain.  But for significant part of my code I prefer
>> to portablility, and that may include avoiding features not
>> supported by lesser compilers.  I the past tcc was not able
>> to compile code which I consider rather ordinary C, and due
>> to this and lack of support for my main target I did not use
>> tcc.  But tcc improved, ATM I do not know if it is good enough
>> for me, but it passed initial tests, so I have no reason to
>> disregard it.
>>
>> BTW: IME "exotic" tools and targets help with finding bugs.
>> So even if you do not normally need to compile with some
>> compiler it makes sense to check if it works.
>>
> 
> I would think that the main reason for David Brown's absence of
> interest in tcc is simply because tcc do not have back ends for
> targets that he cares about.
> In particular, Arm port appears to be abandoned in 2003, so quite
> likely tcc can't generate code that runs on MCUs with ARMv7-M
> architecture that happens to be released first in the same year and
> officially named in the 2004.

I remember running TCC on both RPi1 (2012) and RPi4 (2019). That would 
be ARM32 (some version of ARMv7 I guess; I find ARM model numbers 
bewildering).

It's possible I also tried TCC in the ARM64 mode of RPi4.

So it sounds rather unlikely that TCC doesn't support ARM.