Re: question about linker

On 04/12/2024 20:55, David Brown wrote:

On 04/12/2024 16:09, Bart wrote:

It's used to avoid cluttering code with ugly xxx:: qualifiers, and save some typing at the same time. That's pretty much it.

 Buy a better keyboard.  Saving typing is a pathetic excuse.

How does a better keyboard make this less cluttery:
    std::cout << xxx::X << yyy::Y << std::endl
Compare with:
    cout << X << Y endl

That seems to be something akin to C++ classes or structs with static methods.  But I'm not sure, and certainly not sure how it is relevant.

You said my namespaces were jumbled. They generally work as people expect, other than some different rules on name resolution.
Compare for example how filenames are resolved in a file system, when both absolute and relative paths are missing. Sometimes it will look in a list of special places (eg. using Windows' PATH variable) if not found locally.
You don't agree with my choices, OK.

Of course tcc won't work - I work with embedded systems, and as I have said countless times, your little tools don't target the devices I use.

In my hardware days I built boards with embedded processors too.
I programmed them with my 'toy' language. Sometimes I didn't have have a compiler, so a couple of times I wrote an assembler for the device. The assembler (obviously, you will consider that a toy) was written in my toy language. (One was for 80188, the other was 8035 or 8051.)
My point is that 'toy' implementations /could/ work just as well, and here I was able to get working prototypes. (At least, until my boss had some new ideas and I moved on to something else.)

I /need/ good optimisations - it's not an option, it's a requirement to get fast enough code for the end system to work.  So your toys would not be usable even if they supported the right target.

And I did without an optimising compiler for 20 years. Not that C compilers were that much better for a lot of that period, of 82-02.
   I use C++ as well as

C - your toys don't support that.  I use C17 (and will move to C23 when my tools support it) - tcc supports only up to partial C99 support, and $DEITY only knows what partial C standard your compiler handles.

My C compiler is for my personal use. It will build only a tiny fraction of existing code, but will compile 100% of the code I write, or generate.
So I'm not asking people to use it. But it shows what is possible.