61–70 of 124 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With C, you have the whole toolbox and the toolbox factory.
Both the tweezers and the bit flipping magnet .. and who would want anything more?
Or... work with me: Make does that, well enough.
Just to be clear, the input must be written in a subset of C, because many constructs are not recognized, like unsigned types, static variables, [] arrays, etc. Is there a plan to remove such limitations?
These are restrictions of the target language and there isn't much pnut can do about this.
edit: For reference, someone's take on building out better bash-like array functionality in posix shell: https://github.com/friendly-bits/POSIX-arrays (there's only very rudimentary array support built-in to posix sh, basically working with stuff in $@ using set -- arg1 arg2..)
I love things like these because they shake our perception of normal loose. And who said our perception of normal doesn't deserve a good shake? A C to shell compiler might seem impractical, but you know what is even more impractical? Having a separate language for a build system. And yet, here we are. Using Shell, Make or CMake to build a C program is only acceptable because is has always been so. It's a "perceived n…
I disagree. For a very simple example it really makes life easier to not have to care about quoting filenames in build systems and just list a.c b.cpp etc., while you really want strings to be quoted in normal programming languages. Build systems that tried to be based on syntax of existing PLs (for instance Meson, QBS) are a real PITA for me when compared to CMake due to a lot of such affordances.
Instantly make your C code 200 times slower without any effort!
I can't wait to see the shell equivalents for ptrace, setjmp, and dlopen.
Maybe then I can also interest you in an exception handler for DOS batch scripts:
When I'm told that "I can trust" something that I feel like I had no reason to distrust, it makes me feel even more suspicious of it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I cant run cosmolibc on Android, for example. Then again this converter is somewhat limited and didn't accept any of the IOCCC code I gave it.
> I cant run cosmolibc on Android, for example. You can: https://justine.lol/cosmo3/ > After nearly one year of development, I'm pleased to announce our version 3.0 release of the Cosmopolitan library. [...] we invented a new linker that lets you build fat binaries which can run on these platforms: AMD ... ARM64 https://github.com/jart/cosmopolitan/releases/tag/3.5.3 > This release fixes Android support. You can now…
The `sum` example doesn't seem to do wrapping, but signed int overflow is technically UB so I guess they're fine not to.
Switching it to `unsigned int` gives me:
code.c:1:1 syntax error: unsupported type