From: noemail@basdxcqvbe.com   
      
   On Sun, 30 Jan 2022 20:31:21 -0800 (PST)   
   "muta...@gmail.com"  wrote:   
      
   [snip]   
      
   > We have to work within this natural phenomenon.   
      
   That's why I keep bringing up open source code.   
      
   I'm not really a fan of open source, but one   
   needs to have plenty of tools available, and   
   there are only so many choices out there.  Most   
   of the free stuff has migrated to open source.   
   So, if you don't have a lot of money ...   
      
   > There is a small number of people, close to 1, who have the   
   > skills required to write a C compiler and a willingness to   
   > release that unconditionally.   
   >   
   > Then there are a small number of people, possibly also   
   > close to 1, who actually appreciate that and are willing to   
   > use that inferior product rather than gcc/Visual C/clang.   
   >   
      
   What I've been hoping for - about a decade now - is a   
   transpiler for C.  A transpiler is a source-to-source   
   compiler, e.g., Fortran-to-C etc.   
      
   Specifically, I'd like a C-to-C compiler.  The compiler   
   would take modern C99 or C11 etc and output the code as   
   C89 or maybe even K&R C.  Ideally, a valid subset of C   
   for C89 would be even better.   
      
   It would be great if the CompCert C compiler project   
   had this feature.  Then, you could "dumb-ify" any piece   
   of C code, so that it would bootstrap and compile with   
   any old simple C compiler.  Other projects that might   
   be ideal for this could be LLVM or Necula's CIL or   
   maybe even TCC.  Maybe even GCC with a new machine   
   description could work.   
      
      
   --   
   Is Biden up to his neck, soon to drown?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)