[qcc] qcc / tcc

[Rob Landley]

I should do a proper project page for toybox with links to the mailing
list and mercurial archive and a download area and news entries and such...

Before dreamhost stopped being competent about mailing lists, going to
lists.landley.net would show all the mailing lists I'd set up. Now, not
so much. (I've posted news entries about them being broken on the
http://landley.net/toybox page.)

It's http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/qcc-landley.net

It's not very active, but as long as people are mailing me off-list
about it and there _is_ interest...

Rob

On 02/19/2015 12:02 PM, Avery Payne wrote:
> Not at all.  Actually, if you could send me the link to sign up...
> 
> On 2/18/2015 9:01 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
>> Do you mind if I cc: this response to the toybox mailing list?
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> On 02/17/2015 07:44 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
>>> On 02/17/2015 07:35 PM, Avery Payne wrote:
>>>> I'm sorry if this is a sore topic.
>>> Nah, I'm just busy. Toybox takes precedence until the 1.0 release, but
>>> I'm thinking I should poke at qcc a bit (preprocessor and linker) in the
>>> meantime.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'm only interested because the
>>>> alternatives to GCC appear to be:
>>>>
>>>> llvm & friends
>>>> pcc
>>>> tcc
>>>> qcc
>>>>
>>>> I read about your experiences with the maintainer of tcc on your
>>>> website
>>>> and the issues you had with a maintainer.  I also saw that you forked
>>>> tcc to become qcc but it's been on hold for some time.
>>> I forked it _before_ he became maintainer. (Fabrice was still nominally
>>> maintianer, just ignoring it.)
>>>
>>> I stopped when the new guy became maintainer. I ranted about it a couple
>>> times, might be linked from:
>>>
>>> http://landley.net/code/qcc
>>>
>>> or from:
>>>
>>> http://landley.net/code/tinycc
>>>
>>>> Since then, tcc
>>>> has finally landed 64 bit support, but the same maintainer that caused
>>>> you grief is still there.
>>>>
>>>> I was wondering, after toybox starts to mature a bit (and Aboriginal as
>>>> well), do you plan to return to qcc so that gcc can be replaced? Do you
>>>> recommend using the current tcc release at all, or should it
>>>> continue to
>>>> be avoided?
>>> I don't personally bother with the current tcc release, don't know
>>> anything about it. I do know you can't bootstrap a system with it. Won't
>>> build the kernel, has no interest in doing so.
>>>
>>>> Thank you for being patient with my pesky questions.
>>> Rob
>>>
> 
>