Re: [Tinycc-devel] Request push
Hi, On Sun, 22 Jun 2014, David Mertens wrote: Hey jiang, For each of these three patches, please explain the following: 1) When run with the version of tcc without your patch, what behavior do you get? What does the C99 spec tell us we should get? 2) How does the proposed patch alter the behavior of tcc? Also, it appears you did not read the links I provided about how to write good commit messages. Please re-read those and write better ones. Patch 2 at least also contains gratious whitespace changes creating lines longer than 80 character (I know, not a strict policy for TCC, but existing code mostly follows that). And patch 3 (the bitfield fiddling) certainly is wrong as explained in some other mail. Ciao, Michael. ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Tinycc-devel Digest, Vol 134, Issue 16
Hi,
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014, jiang wrote:
This is my patch (see Annex)
tcc result is correct
-- 254 / 30 / 126
That's not the correct result. If you think it is the probably because
you're confused by the semantics of assignments as rvalue.
I guess gcc mvc repeated use of the register, so wrong
No, GCC and MSVC are correct.
struct {
unsigned a:9, b:5, c:7;
} _s, *s = _s;
int n = 250;
s-a = s-b = s-c = n + 4;
To show that GCC is correct (and TCC wrong, and your patch still wrong)
rewrite the above into the explicit expansion according to associativity
of '=':
s-c = n + 4; // s-c == 254 127 == 126
s-b = s-c; // s-b == 126 31 == 30
s-a = s-b; // s-a == 30
In particular the value loaded into s-a comes from s-b, and hence is the
truncated value, which isn't changed anymore as 5 bits fits into 9 bits.
Ciao,
Michael.
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] State of the tcc project
Hi, On Sun, 22 Jun 2014, David Mertens wrote: Sorry, I decided to give more than 20 hours for folks to weigh in, and then time got away from me. I'll revert jiang's changes with a push some time around June 23 (tomorrow), 9:00PM New York time. By the way, if the instructions at http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git are supposed to be the community rules, jiang was not really breaking any. We should probably work with a different approach. I suggest that individuals who have ideas should do the following: 1) Discuss bug reports or feature requests on the mailing list. 2) If individuals on the mailing list agree that the idea is a good one, the individual should publish their work on a public git hosting site and submit a pull request on the mailing list. 3) After somebody with commit access has checked it out, they can pull it into the official release branch. That would mean closing the mob branch (otherwise everybody has commit access :) ). FWIW, I'd have never touched the x86-64 backend in TCC at all if it weren't for mob. I think overall the mob branch worked reasonably well until recently, and I'd hate to see it thrown out because of people having a different notion of reasonable behaviour :-/ Unfortunately I have no good alternative suggestion, though :-( Ciao, Michael.___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] State of the tcc project
Hi, Mob is mob. And there is master there. By the way, if the instructions at http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git are supposed to be the community rules, jiang was not really breaking any. We should probably work with a different approach. I suggest that individuals who have ideas should do the following: That would mean closing the mob branch (otherwise everybody has commit access :) ). until recently, and I'd hate to see it thrown out because of people having a different notion of reasonable behaviour :-/ People listens to others could learn and contribute. Things could have advantages and disadvantages. ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
[Tinycc-devel] Request push
I'll push a patch. bug: -- #define hexCh(c (c = 10 ? 'a' + c - 10 : '0' + c) hexCh(c); out: jiang@jiang:~/test$ ./tcc -E c4.c # 1 c4.c (c = 10 ? 'a' + c - 10 : '0' + c); --- #define hexCh(c/3) (c = 10 ? 'a' + c - 10 : '0' + c) hexCh(c); out: jiang@jiang:~/test$ ./tcc -E c4.c # 1 c4.c /3) (c = 10 ? 'a' + c - 10 : '0' + c); jiang@jiang:~/test$ after patch: # 1 c4.c c4.c:1: error: may not appear in macro parameter list: ( jiang@jiang:~/test$ jiang@jiang:~/test$ ./tcc -E c4.c # 1 c4.c c4.c:1: error: may not appear in macro parameter list: / jiang@jiang:~/test$ - g...@gitcafe.com:weixiao/tinycc.git Thank you for reminding jiang ? 2014?06?23? 09:50, tinycc-devel-requ...@nongnu.org ??: Hey jiang, For each of these three patches, please explain the following: 1) When run with the version of tcc without your patch, what behavior do you get? What does the C99 spec tell us we should get? 2) How does the proposed patch alter the behavior of tcc? Also, it appears you did not read the links I provided about how to write good commit messages. Please re-read those and write better ones. Thanks! David On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 3:41 AM, jiang 30155...@qq.com mailto:30155...@qq.com wrote: Here is a patch to push I hope to help you. jiang ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org mailto:Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel -- Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it. -- Brian Kernighan tinycc is a great project, and I am honored to join a project commit 87373cd0ec7f5b0c0de77565090bf9710d7107a0 Author: jiang 30155...@qq.com Date: Mon Jun 16 16:43:40 2014 +0800 #define bug fixes bug: #define hexCh(c (c = 10 ? 'a' + c - 10 : '0' + c) hexCh(c); diff --git a/tccpp.c b/tccpp.c index 053fd57..dfbc857 100644 --- a/tccpp.c +++ b/tccpp.c @@ -1253,16 +1253,15 @@ ST_FUNC void parse_define(void) next_nomacro(); } if (varg TOK_IDENT) -tcc_error(badly punctuated parameter list); +tcc_error(may not appear in macro parameter list: \%s\, get_tok_str(varg, NULL)); s = sym_push2(define_stack, varg | SYM_FIELD, is_vaargs, 0); *ps = s; ps = s-next; if (tok != ',') -break; +continue; next_nomacro(); } -if (tok == ')') -next_nomacro_spc(); +next_nomacro_spc(); t = MACRO_FUNC; } tok_str_new(str); ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Is static linking functional?
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014, at 11:40 AM, grischka wrote:
Why should we comment about the usability of -static if you
don't even know that it means?
I'll admit I'm confused by the operation of the -static switch in TCC.
tcc app.c lib.a
outputs an app.exe but
tcc -static app.c lib.a
gives an error
tcc: error: cannot find library: msvcrt
From looking at these lines in tccpe.c, it seems that should not happen.
--
if (0 == s1-nostdlib) {
static const char *libs[] = {
libtcc1.a, msvcrt, kernel32, , user32, gdi32,
NULL
};
const char **pp, *p;
for (pp = libs; 0 != (p = *pp); ++pp) {
if (0 == *p) {
if (PE_DLL != pe_type PE_GUI != pe_type)
break;
} else if (pp == libs ? tcc_add_dll(s1, p, 0) :
tcc_add_library(s1, p)) {
tcc_error_noabort(cannot find library: %s, p);
break;
}
}
}
--
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - Choose from over 50 domains or use your own
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Is static linking functional?
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 12:07:45PM -0700, Wendell P wrote: I'll admit I'm confused by the operation of the -static switch in TCC. tcc app.c lib.a Links a single static library tcc -static app.c lib.a Instructs TinyCC to use only static libraries, even for implicitly linked libraries like msvcrt. I doubt you can create anything useful in Windows without dynamic libraries. Daniel ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
