ccan VS chibicc

Hilarious!

But I remember the first time I saw such a program which never freed anything: jitterbug, the simple bug tracker which ran as a CGI script.

It indeed allows a very simple style!

Meanwhile, use ccan/tal (https://github.com/rustyrussell/ccan/blob/master/ccan/tal/_i...) and be happy :)

There's CCAN, maintained by kernel hacker Rusty Russell: http://ccodearchive.net/

Please note that the above link has been claimed by squatters and isn’t the right link for CCAN anymore! The maintainer suggests [1] just using the GitHub repo [2] instead.

[1] https://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/ccan/2022-September/00141...

[2] https://github.com/rustyrussell/ccan/

This is a great learning exercise but not very useful because using void* creates practical problems that the compiler cant help you with. IMHO, for a nice vector in C look at https://github.com/rustyrussell/ccan/blob/master/ccan/darray/darray.h

For more advanced intrusive lists in C, I've found that ccan's tlist2 (https://github.com/rustyrussell/ccan/blob/master/ccan/tlist2...) provides a decent model here.

Compared to the linux kernel's intrusive lists, it also tracks the offset of the list_node within the structure contained by the list, which eliminates another class of problems. It does still have the "using the iterator after the for loop is over" issue discussed in this article, but it also already tracks the types as Linus proposed doing in the article to resolve the issue.

ccan library https://github.com/rustyrussell/ccan I think it is used also in the linux kernel(?)

ccan (analagous to cpan, but for C rather than Perl.)

You could use a discriminated union in your list node. You could use a void pointer in your list node, allocate space as needed and memcpy the date into this space, or don't allocate and store pointers to the original data. You could use an intrusive list, like this.

The fallacy in the article is that anyone should code these functions. There's plenty of public domain libraries that do this correctly.

https://github.com/rustyrussell/ccan/blob/master/ccan/endian...

If a --k&r mode was to be reliable, wouldn't it need to get specified first? Otherwise people would start relying on some edge case.

If speed is not a requirement for the --k&r mode, you could just take the tis-interpreter and note that if it runs without UB, it is still much faster than an actual computer was when k&r were active.

Would it even be possible to specify a variant of C that contains no UB (e.g. would define exactly what happens on unaligned access), but can compile practical existing C89 programs? I wonder if it could be written such that it could actually specify the behaviour consistently across the language intersection supported by both of e.g. GCC 2.95 and Chibicc[0].

Or maybe there are so many bugs in GCC 2.95 that it would simply be infeasible? How much time would it take to specify?

[0]: https://github.com/rui314/chibicc

I was on the Eclipse Foundation call a few days ago regarding this topic and they said there was a well-established 3-part test for this in the EU courts. But I don't think I managed to take a screenshot, sorry.

Here is a snippet from the EU Blue Guide linked the from the Eclipse blog post:

"Commercial activity is understood as providing goods in a business related context. Non-profit organisations may be considered as carrying out commercial activities if they operate in such a context. This can only be appreciated on a case by case basis taking into account the regularity of the supplies, the characteristics of the product, the intentions of the supplier, etc. In principle, occasional supplies by charities or hobbyists should not be considered as taking place in a business related context."

I would consider GCC or React to fit this definition, while a hobby project like https://github.com/rui314/chibicc not to fit it.

chibicc

chibicc: https://github.com/rui314/chibicc (A reasonably digestible C implementation)

When you say a fork of LLVM, am I correct in assuming that you specifically mean a fork of Clang? I don't see how the compiler backend would affect support for language extensions, regardless of whether it's an exception to that such as Tcc, Cproc, the MIR C jitter, lacc, 8cc, 9cc, and chibicc. Most of those are not for production, excluding Cproc and Tcc (at least according to Suckless or Oasis).