chibicc VS Vacietis

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).

Yes. Not because of the developer, but because of how extremely flexible and dynamic the Lisp-family languages are. The power and joy of Lisp is in how it's almost a meta-language, so every project can become its own EDSL. The most famous (infamous?) example of this is Vacietis[2], which is a Common Lisp library that allows C code to be imported directly(!!).

[0] IIRC the Yesod framework's Warp does well on benchmarks, and when you look at code like https://github.com/yesodweb/wai/blob/master/warp/Network/Wai... you can see the lengths they had to go through to work around the choice of implementation language.

[1] Go has a garbage collector, but exposes the stack/heap distinction more directly than Haskell, so it's easier to write allocation-free code in hot paths.

[2] https://github.com/vsedach/Vacietis

racket and common lisp both offer reader interfaces which allow parsing non-s-expression languages. see https://github.com/vsedach/Vacietis , a c compiler implemented in common lisp which uses the common lisp reader.

Very funny. One might be interested in e.g. Vacietis which does manage to compile enough of C correctly to a higher level language (in this case, Common Lisp) to be interesting.

https://github.com/vsedach/Vacietis - C in CL

C

How about C?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25531871

https://github.com/vsedach/Vacietis

================

Vacietis is a C compiler for Common Lisp systems.

Vacietis works by loading C code into a Common Lisp runtime as though