Re: [Tinycc-devel] Question about in-memory compilation target

[grischka]

On 09.02.2024 01:44, Eric Raible wrote:
>  > Then, instead of adding a new API to support the
>  >      "run without state"
>  > option better (as you suggest), we could just as well remove that
>  > option entirely, and have a simpler and more "lovely" API then ...
>  >
>  > What do you think?
>  >
> I think removing that option entirely would be fine.  Others might disagree.
> But if we _keep_ that option, then we should have tcc_unprotect().
> With respect to "tweak the state a bit", that sounds risky if we're really
> trying to stabilize for a release.

Ok, I like it to remove stuff:
https://repo.or.cz/tinycc.git/blob/b671fc0594625eb5ac147ec83be6d0c1fc1a6ad5:/libtcc.h

> On an unrelated note, there was a commit a while back that proposed putting 
> more into
> TCCState, such that no global state at all exists.  I am in favor of that 
> proposal, which
> kind of implies an even bigger TCCState.

Yeah, answer is always the same:
- eyes would hurt from seeing "s1->" all over the place
- finger would hurt for those who'd like to contribute
- not to mention what if you'd try to rebase some patch that you already have
See also
https://repo.or.cz/tinycc.git/commitdiff/af686a796bda94dc92fc3ad140ef438dafa08950

--- grischka