Re: [Tinycc-devel] possible minor changes to code
Thomas Preud'homme wrote: Le samedi 8 mars 2014, 13:41:44 Carlos Montiers a écrit : About spawnvp, I found it compiling with tiny c. I compare the definitions of mingw and tinyc of spawnvp and are differents: The tinycc headers ARE from mingw. (Just maybe not the same mingw) Hence the error. Grischka, is it something we should change? Why not. Wouldn't be for the first time: http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git/commitdiff/642b6d0f50c6 --- grischka ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Dump internal command line used by tcc
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 04:34:54PM +0100, Mathieu Malaterre wrote: > Hi there, > > I am working on an issue within cmake+tcc. CMake is able to parse > the verbose output from gcc to get the actual command used to link an > executable: tcc does the linking itself, no command involved in the process. HTH. > >However in the case of tcc, the output is pretty terse, is there > any way I can dump the actual command lines invokes internally ? > Thanks > > ref: > http://cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=14792#c35367 > > -M > > ___ > 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
[Tinycc-devel] Dump internal command line used by tcc
Hi there, I am working on an issue within cmake+tcc. CMake is able to parse the verbose output from gcc to get the actual command used to link an executable: However in the case of tcc, the output is pretty terse, is there any way I can dump the actual command lines invokes internally ? Thanks ref: http://cmake.org/Bug/view.php?id=14792#c35367 -M ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] llvm IR target
Thomas, wanted to keep low noise, thus did not disclose more details, but here it is: I am experimenting with some language extensions, such as classes/objects, fibers, etc. For some parts of the could just use C++ but among other annoyances for me in C++ is that I do not have "official" access to the virtual function pointer table. The list is long. I call these extensions decorators. One can think this as a macro and preprocessor replacement, where the replacement preprocessor is supposed to understand part of the syntax context. I tried to do all that with macros... but after really lot of work in hacking around with macros like in boost preprocessor, I decided to stop fighting the wind mils. Though ended up in writing nice macros for class declaration/initalization, for method calling etc. With macros, I could have stayed 100% C, but the price was too high. So I am trying to add these decorators through minimum language extensions. Like original C++ compilers, the code should translate into C. For (pre)processing my extensions I need to build a C parser, though. Have two options for the moment: hack tcc and/or write my own context-sensitive parser with ragel. (I just started to know ragel. It seems that through fcall feature it is possible to write this parser). The approach with ragel would allow me to preprocess the "decarated" code into C, and compile with anything. By hacking tcc, I would have from the beginning a fast compiler, but with less optimized code. And here could clang come into picture. regards, mobi phil ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] tcc bootstrap
Hi, On Mon, 10 Mar 2014, Christian Jullien wrote: > Yes I fully agree that tcc should, by default, be a gcc compiled program. > Also, as Patrick said, having tcc bootstrapped by itself has the following > advantages: > > - it proves tcc is complete > - it proves tcc does not use gcc extensions, or it implements extensions in a > compatible way > - it is a very good non-regression test > - it allows to have a decent C compiler without the need to install huge gcc > suite (useful on ARM boards) > > A ./configure --bootstrap may do the job. Guys, just look at the testsuite. It's part of that since a long time. test3 compiles tcctest by a tcc compiled by tcc compiled by tcc compiled by tcc (i.e. _four_ times, the comment above it is wrong). Ciao, Michael. ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
