pycopy-lib VS chibicc

So, unlike MicroPython itself, which was started by another guy, micropython-lib was started and largely done by me (but initially contributed it to the micropython project, yeah). I continue that work in https://github.com/pfalcon/pycopy-lib

In this version, improvements in native types subclassing support. Pycopy standard library, https://github.com/pfalcon/pycopy-lib, also sees further development and improvements.

Plug pure-Python bytecode (or JIT) compiler: https://github.com/pfalcon/pycopy-lib/tree/master/ucompiler (prototype/WIP)

Plug pure-Python bytecode (or JIT) compiler: https://github.com/pfalcon/pycopy-lib/tree/master/ucompiler (prototype/WIP)

Thanks. Except it's not mine, but CPython2's stdlib module (written by many people) ported to Python3.5. What's mine is Pycopy stdlib ucompiler module: https://github.com/pfalcon/pycopy-lib/tree/master/ucompiler, written by me from scratch based on the experience with CPython2's module (I figured I'd have better time writing one from scratch than cleaning up CPython2's module).

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).