First of all thanks for Daniel for the fix ! I followed the code on fossil-scm with printfs on va_start/va_end using the previous tcc stdargs implementation and it showed me that both the parent and child do va_end on the same pointer that's why the segfault.
And as I looked on the generated code by gcc/clang/pcc all of then do not us alloc/call all is inlined so no problem of double free. So I'll not bother look any further on fossil-scm to find why it happens with the old tcc stdarg implementation. Thanks again for all of you for this great work ! On Sat, Mar 29, 2014 at 11:37 PM, Michael Matz <matz....@frakked.de> wrote: > Hi, > > > On Sat, 29 Mar 2014, Domingo Alvarez Duarte wrote: > > clang and pcc also generates inline assembly instead of call/alloc. >> > > Yes. I haven't said the relevant stdarg functions have to use malloc. > They just need to interoperate with what the ABI says (and that's passing > by pointer). Daniel downthread is correct in that va_list itself doesn't > have to be a pointer, that was merely TCCs way of fulfilling the ABI > requirements. So he fixed it meanwhile, so I'm fine. > > The fossil-scm issue should still be investigated somewhen. TCCs old > implementation of stdarg was conforming, so changing it to something else > shouldn't affect any correctly written code (meaning that I'd suspect > either some different bug in TCC that now is merely hidden, or a bug in > fossil-scm (perhaps in their usage of stdarg functions) that's now hidden). > > > > Ciao, > Michael. > > _______________________________________________ > Tinycc-devel mailing list > Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel >
_______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
