On 5/29/25 02:35, Lino Mastrodomenico wrote:
Thanks to both of you.
The semantics of __attribute__((cleanup)) require that the entire
return expression is evaluated before the cleanup functions are
called. So saving the cleanup symbol solves most common cases but not
all of them.
E.g. this
Thanks to both of you.
The semantics of __attribute__((cleanup)) require that the entire return
expression is evaluated before the cleanup functions are called. So saving
the cleanup symbol solves most common cases but not all of them.
E.g. this slightly modified test case returns 42 on GCC and C
Vincent Lefevre wrote in
<20250527155503.gf128...@qaa.vinc17.org>:
|On 2025-05-26 19:39:03 +0800, Jackson Helie G wrote:
|> In this case (long double xx=0xf.001p0L;) tcc will lose the
|> last 3 digits. If p0 is changed to p-2000, all bits will be 0. However, \
|> gcc
|> and clang
On 5/26/25 13:39, Jackson Helie G wrote:
In this case (long double xx=0xf.001p0L;) tcc will lose
the last 3 digits. If p0 is changed to p-2000, all bits will be 0.
However, gcc and clang do not have this error. Note that my current
hardware system is a 16-byte long double type, with
Hello,
Just to let you know, I've worked on this on my own last Saturday, and I've
almost managed to port TCC to the NumWorks:
https://github.com/Naereen/A-C-Compiler-for-the-NumWorks-calculator
I've had to modify a bit the source code of tinycc.git/ to build a
arm-eabihf-libtcc.a static librar
