Re: [Tinycc-devel] plans to 0.9.27 (was 0.9.28)

I only have a remote access on aarch64 using my gccfarm account and I confess I don't test all commits. Your suggestion: - char b; + signed char b; Fixes it, you can push this change -Original Message- From: grischka [mailto:gris...@gmx.de] Sent: dimanche 24 septembre 2017

Re: [Tinycc-devel] spelling

On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 8:08 PM, Larry Doolittle wrote: > Friends - > > I just committed a patch with 28 spelling fixes to mob. > > One word baffled me: in tcc.h I find the comment > "next related symbol (for fields and anoms)" > What are anoms? > > - Larry > >

[Tinycc-devel] spelling

Friends - I just committed a patch with 28 spelling fixes to mob. One word baffled me: in tcc.h I find the comment "next related symbol (for fields and anoms)" What are anoms? - Larry ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Using tinycc for full source bootstrapping

Friends - On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 12:27:17PM -0700, Larry Doolittle wrote: > On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 09:48:25AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > > -p[0] = x & 255, p[1] = x >> 8 & 255; > The original line above, however, screams "I am a bug" to me. > The return value of "x & 255" is ignored,

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Using tinycc for full source bootstrapping

Friends - On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 09:48:25AM +0200, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote: > -p[0] = x & 255, p[1] = x >> 8 & 255; > +p[0] = x & 255; p[1] = x >> 8 & 255; I think the comma operator is an awesome part of the C standard, and sometimes permits much more clear and concise expression of

Re: [Tinycc-devel] plans to 0.9.27 (was 0.9.28)

Christian Jullien wrote: While mod after you last commit works great on Windows 32/64 Rpi arm It has one issue on Aarch64 (yet I don't know if it is related to your last commit or not): Hm. It might have to do with unsigned-ness of chars on arm. If so it is a bug in the test and the change

Re: [Tinycc-devel] plans to 0.9.28

While mod after you last commit works great on Windows 32/64 Rpi arm It has one issue on Aarch64 (yet I don't know if it is related to your last commit or not): jullien@gcc113:~/tinycc$ uname -a Linux gcc113 3.13.0-92-generic #139-Ubuntu SMP Tue Jun 28 20:45:34 UTC 2016 aarch64 aarch64 aarch64

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Using tinycc for full source bootstrapping

I wonder which would be the smaller patch: The changes you propose for tcc or a patch to support these constructs as is in the bootstrap compiler. Otherwise if that is not your criterion what would be the arguments for the semantics that you mention that they do not belong to "simple enough C"?

Re: [Tinycc-devel] plans to 0.9.28

Very nice indeed. I offer you my time to test every attempts on: Windows x86/x64 Linux x86/x64 RPi arm Aarch64 -Original Message- From: grischka [mailto:gris...@gmx.de] Sent: dimanche 24 septembre 2017 19:10 To: Christian JULLIEN; tinycc-devel@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel]

Re: [Tinycc-devel] plans to 0.9.28

Hi, I just pushed a patch for more complete 'long' support (which was started by Matthias Gatto for _Generic), as well as with eome improvements for multicharacter constants: http://repo.or.cz/tinycc.git/commitdiff/1443039416dd02750765efde1af35e31c8d41be3 So, now, basically, I'd agree to,

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Using tinycc for full source bootstrapping

A non-maintainer, here are my 2c: As a matter of style, I like this idea but: - tcc is probably already the smallest C compiler that compiles a decent C compiler - as you probably noticed, there is not a huge activity on tcc these days and I personally prefer than one spent time on something

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Using tinycc for full source bootstrapping

I'm not an active contributor so my opinion doesn't count for much, but here it is anyway. Though I like the idea of implementing TCC in a smaller subset of C it should be a clearly defined subset of C and preferably one that makes sense generally rather than just for a particular bootstrap path.

[Tinycc-devel] Using tinycc for full source bootstrapping

Hi! Are you willing to consider discussing/taking patches that reduce the variety and complexity of C constructs used in TinyCC source code? I have a list of about 20 unpolished patches[0] for constructs like: comma operator -p[0] = x & 255, p[1] = x >> 8 & 255; +p[0] = x & 255; p[1] =