Hi,
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015, Edmund Grimley Evans wrote:
Does this look all right?
Do you have a testcase? I'll agree that there's possibly something fishy,
but the change doesn't look 100% right.
... looksy looksy ...
Hmm, maybe I trace your path how you found this :) When trying to use
Hi,
On Sat, 21 Feb 2015, Edmund Grimley Evans wrote:
Michael Matz matz@frakked.de:
I don't like this. tccgen.c should become _less_ dependend on the
TARGET defines, not more. Hence either VT_REF has a purpose and it
might make sense to use it in more backends, or it hasn't and should
Hi,
On Sun, 22 Feb 2015, Edmund Grimley Evans wrote:
The only disadvantage that I can think of is that certain
expressions which would cause GCC to warn that value computed is
not used would not get optimised.
I think the conversion to rvalue might not actually have to emit
code, in which
Hi,
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015, Edmund Grimley Evans wrote:
VT_REF is not mentioned in the documentation and seems to be used only
for x86_64. Also, it seems to be the same thing as VT_LLOCAL, really.
This could be a first step towards removing it altogether.
Commit message:
Make it explicit
Michael Matz matz@frakked.de:
Do you have a testcase?
I made the change after something in abitest failed with the arm64
back end, but with a newer version than the one I sent to the list.
is: this patches only one place where lvalue_type is called (i.e.
where something on the stack is
Michael Matz matz@frakked.de:
I don't like this. tccgen.c should become _less_ dependend on the
TARGET defines, not more. Hence either VT_REF has a purpose and it
might make sense to use it in more backends, or it hasn't and should
be removed also from x86_64.
I agree, but inserting
Hi,
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Edmund Grimley Evans wrote:
It's not finished, but a lot of things seem to work, and there's a
problem with the linker that perhaps someone could help me with.
See README.arm64 for details.
That's quite cool. Below is a patch on top of your's (slightly amended to
Hello Edmund,
On Tue, 17 Feb 2015, Edmund Grimley Evans wrote:
With TCC the addend is zero! Apparently TCC is putting the offset is
in the data section:
readelf -x .data t1.gcc.o
0x
readelf -x .data t1.tcc.o
0x 1000
Hi,
On Thu, 19 Feb 2015, Naper Hamza wrote:
Hello , I wanna know if tcc have a global config , where we can change some
stuff , if not why not implementing one ?
That's not how compilers traditionally work, it would be a layering
violation. What options are active for a compilation is
Hi,
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015, Edmund Grimley Evans wrote:
extern void f(void);
g() { void (*ptr)(void) = f; ptr(); }
Here there will be a GOT slot allocated for 'f'. The initialization of
'ptr' will load from that GOT slot. So even though direct calls to 'f'
can (and will be, when 'f' is
10 matches
Mail list logo
