[qcc] Hello world.

[orc]

On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 21:56:51 -0500
Rob Landley <rob at landley.net> wrote:

> Obviously, qcc doesn't work yet, and I don't really have time to work
> on it yet (toybox has dibs on my hobbyist coding time until it has a
> 1.0 release), but I can at least do the cleanup and license clearance
> stuff, and that requires a space to do so.
> 
> After that, my priority is refactoring the code so it's got a
> multiplexer, I.E. I can go "ln -s qcc cpp" and then use cpp as a
> preprocessor. (This should get me a decent way to modularizing the
> code so I can swap out bits.)
> 
> The assembler's going to need work: that's the big bit I'll have to
> write for each target.  The linker will need some work too. And the
> preprocessor has to set the right default #defines for each target.
> 
> And of cource I'll have to understand tcg, get it hooked up write, and
> people tell me I'll need to extend it significantly.  That's going to
> be fun...
> 
> But first: license cleanup, then code cleanup/reorg/modularization.
> And I should do a website...
> 
> Rob

It seems that we need more developers to beat gcc, how do you think?
One man can develop such thing, but it will be endless work. Or there
is not so much work needed? Maybe qcc should have higher priority than
toybox (or at least equal)?
I planned to publish news about future musl release on local sites, now
I think about a draft of new platform based on such nice software as
musl, busy/toybox and qcc. The one sad thing that I still need to use
bloated gcc and binutils for building the rest.
Maybe BSD guys will be interested in qcc? They try to get pcc to work,
but I still see old gcc and binutils in OpenBSD's base. The problem is
binutils probably (still there is no replacement for it).

 1340447573.0