Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: bart <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Motivation of tccc mainatainers (Was: Python recompile)
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 16:52:24 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <vqse47$2mnr0$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vq1qas$j22$1@gallifrey.nk.ca> <vq6j5h$1qosf$1@dont-email.me>
 <20250304092827.708@kylheku.com> <vq7g1p$1vmg5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vq94dt$2boso$1@dont-email.me> <vqcsk7$23bfo$1@paganini.bofh.team>
 <vqefn1$3flpt$1@dont-email.me> <vqeu5c$3imil$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqeun4$3iqbq$1@dont-email.me> <vqfcbe$3lkkc$1@dont-email.me>
 <871pv861ht.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <20250308192940.00001351@yahoo.com>
 <vqi1ge$8jg8$1@dont-email.me> <vqmgjv$3a2il$1@paganini.bofh.team>
 <vqn4dn$1eb9s$1@dont-email.me> <vqo3ss$3hkas$1@paganini.bofh.team>
 <vqph2e$203bs$2@dont-email.me> <vqpjh7$210q9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqpo1s$222s0$1@dont-email.me> <vqpqo6$23197$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqpsvc$23gc1$1@dont-email.me> <20250311201757.000045e2@yahoo.com>
 <vqqaf0$267fp$2@dont-email.me> <20250312005843.00003584@yahoo.com>
 <vqqlc6$28fls$6@dont-email.me> <20250312105319.0000070b@yahoo.com>
 <vqs48v$2kqma$1@dont-email.me> <20250312163212.00005db3@yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2025 17:52:24 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e9dc620c2c96c3597ca3aa589c3facef";
	logging-data="2842464"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19DofCyO3CJf+wfcWq5sX6i"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NffibtC1mTMI1fI/TX4TqQGG4gM=
In-Reply-To: <20250312163212.00005db3@yahoo.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 3864

On 12/03/2025 14:32, Michael S wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 14:04:16 +0000
> bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 12/03/2025 08:53, Michael S wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:43:51 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>>>    
>>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2025 00:58:43 +0200, Michael S wrote:
>>>>   
>>>>> BTW, I think that tcc is doing damage to itself by refusal to
>>>>> support ucrt variant of Microsoft's C RTL.
>>>>
>>>> Damaging their market share and hurting their revenues?
>>>
>>> I don't know what exactly motivates people to continue to maintain
>>> tcc after all fun things, like, for example, writing working
>>> compiler*, are done years ago. But it seems that extending user
>>> base and increasing satisfaction of existing users is not totally
>>> unimportant for this people.
>>
>> Tcc is a more important product than you might think. It is a compact
>> program of 200-300KB that can turn C source code into binary.
>>
> 
> You post does not answer the question in hand, which is "What motivates
> current tcc maintainers to go on?"

I thought I did. It seems a reasonably well-known compiler with some 
interesting use-cases where a big product may be unsuited.

I'm sure there are enough users world-wide for it to be worth 
maintaining, and people willing to do that.

There are also plenty of people interested in messing with compilers or 
who want to contribute to such projects. Tcc's compiler comprises some 
36 .c and .h files; gcc is more like 85,000 files.

So Tcc would be simpler to work with, given 99.95% fewer files, and to 
make a noticeable difference to!

> Nor does it help us to decide whether support for UCRT-based C RTL is
> would be worth their effort (my original suggestion) or pointless, as
> suggested by Lawrence D'Oliveiro.

I don't know what the significance of UCRT-based means. As such that 
would't make me stop using it.