7 ms·

I was just about to reply about the same thing: #!/usr/bin/tcc -run #include <stdio.h> int main() { printf("Hello\n"); return 0; }

jolmg 6y ago
Or even tcc -w -run - <<< 'main() { printf("Hello\n"); return 0; }' However, runc seems more convenient to pass in just the statements.
- jonathonf 6y ago
  That wasn't quite what I was trying to show with the snippet - I was intimating that you can use tcc to run C directly in something like a shell script. If you want to make `tcc -w -run` etc. more convenient then: alias trun='tcc -w -run - <<<' trun 'main() { printf("Hello\n"); return 0; }' --- I can't edit my parent comment now, but it can be improved with e.g. //usr/bin/tcc -run $0; exit main() { printf("Hello\n"); return 0; }
  - jolmg 6y ago
    > That wasn't quite what I was trying to show with the snippet - I was intimating that you can use tcc to run C directly in something like a shell script. I know, but the first example in the link was: $ runc 'printf("%s\n", "Hello!");' Hello! So I figured I'd complement your example use with one that was more analogous to that. > I can't edit my parent comment now, but it can be improved with e.g. To be honest, I liked your original example more. Using that `//` "shebang" depends on what shell it's invoked from, and it wouldn't work when calling exec from other languages. For example, with your last example using `//`: $ python -c 'import subprocess; subprocess.run(["./hello-tcc-double-slash-shebang.c"])' Traceback (most recent call last): File "<string>", line 1, in <module> File "/usr/lib/python3.8/subprocess.py", line 489, in run with Popen(*popenargs, **kwargs) as process: File "/usr/lib/python3.8/subprocess.py", line 854, in __init__ self._execute_child(args, executable, preexec_fn, close_fds, File "/usr/lib/python3.8/subprocess.py", line 1702, in _execute_child raise child_exception_type(errno_num, err_msg, err_filename) OSError: [Errno 8] Exec format error: './hello-tcc-double-slash-shebang.c' while it would work with the `#!` shebang, since that's handled by the kernel.

jolmg 6y ago

Or even tcc -w -run - <<< 'main() { printf("Hello\n"); return 0; }' However, runc seems more convenient to pass in just the statements.

jonathonf 6y ago
That wasn't quite what I was trying to show with the snippet - I was intimating that you can use tcc to run C directly in something like a shell script. If you want to make `tcc -w -run` etc. more convenient then: alias trun='tcc -w -run - <<<' trun 'main() { printf("Hello\n"); return 0; }' --- I can't edit my parent comment now, but it can be improved with e.g. //usr/bin/tcc -run $0; exit main() { printf("Hello\n"); return 0; }
- jolmg 6y ago
  > That wasn't quite what I was trying to show with the snippet - I was intimating that you can use tcc to run C directly in something like a shell script. I know, but the first example in the link was: $ runc 'printf("%s\n", "Hello!");' Hello! So I figured I'd complement your example use with one that was more analogous to that. > I can't edit my parent comment now, but it can be improved with e.g. To be honest, I liked your original example more. Using that `//` "shebang" depends on what shell it's invoked from, and it wouldn't work when calling exec from other languages. For example, with your last example using `//`: $ python -c 'import subprocess; subprocess.run(["./hello-tcc-double-slash-shebang.c"])' Traceback (most recent call last): File "<string>", line 1, in <module> File "/usr/lib/python3.8/subprocess.py", line 489, in run with Popen(*popenargs, **kwargs) as process: File "/usr/lib/python3.8/subprocess.py", line 854, in __init__ self._execute_child(args, executable, preexec_fn, close_fds, File "/usr/lib/python3.8/subprocess.py", line 1702, in _execute_child raise child_exception_type(errno_num, err_msg, err_filename) OSError: [Errno 8] Exec format error: './hello-tcc-double-slash-shebang.c' while it would work with the `#!` shebang, since that's handled by the kernel.