4 ms·

Without structs? Good luck...

• gigel82 3y ago
  LFS already has several "stepping stones" where it walks through a whole set of C compilers from very old ones compiling slightly newer / more capable ones and so on. Perhaps with a few more "layers of compilers" on top you can get a very early GCC going.
  • FpUser 3y ago
    >"Perhaps with a few more "layers of compilers" on top you can get a very early GCC going." Applause. Best comment ;)
• DesiLurker 3y ago
  wonder how many extra bytes for structs?
  • vitiral 3y ago
    In my experience, probably at least a 200-400 lines of C (another 512 bytes minimum? I don't know the conversion). The problem is not just declaring structs but accessing them, referencing them, accessing/referencing fields and subfields, etc. That has to all be in the syntax. For such a minimal project you can ignore initialization. I did all this while adding maybe 500 lines of C to GitHub.com/vitiral/fngi. Never tried for this level of minimalism though.
    • geocar 3y ago
      Once upon a time, when += was spelled =+, struct members in C were global names whose "values" were the offsets from the beginning of the struct[1]; a.b is simply a[ptrtab[b]] and a->b is a[0][ptrtab[b]]. [1]: This is why all of the names of struct members in unix are "needlessly" prefixed; i.e. struct stat.st_mode is not struct stat.mode because that could conflict with struct foo.mode until the early 1980s.
      • DesiLurker 3y ago
        Ah that explains it, I wondered about those old struct defs.