Hi Thomas,
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:20:21PM +0800, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> Le dimanche 19 janvier 2014, 17:03:32 Kirill Smelkov a écrit :
>
> Hi Kirill,
>
> >
> > Sorry for being silent for so long. I've started looking into the
> > problem today
ot;cleanup" you've done in
d5f4df09 "tests: cleanup", where you removed test1b,test2b and test3b
tests is not right - gaining `tcc -b` being able to compile itself was
hard, and tests were there to assure it will stay that working way
without regressions.
Kirill
8&l
On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 05:03:28PM +0100, grischka wrote:
[...]
> Compilation on Windows with MSC fails in tccgen.c:vswap():
> ../tccgen.c(476) : error C2143: syntax error : missing ';' before 'type'
> [more ...]
>
> After moving declarations before statements, it fails like this:
> ../tccgen.c(4
On Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 03:36:49PM +0100, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> Le jeudi 13 décembre 2012 17:55:41, vous avez écrit :
>
> [SNIP]
>
> >
> > from arch/arm/kernel/stacktrace.c:
> >
> > * With framepointer enabled, a simple function prologue looks like
> > this: * mov ip, sp
> >
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 04:19:50PM +0100, grischka wrote:
> Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> >Overall I liked original vstack and vtop assignment rules, only it had
> >to deal with initial vstack-1 somehow. And documentation about vstack
> >and vtop and everything else stays the same.
inutes per day and it is all in underground. Sorry. Could this issue
> > please wait me for some time? (probably week or so...)
>
> That's a worthwhile bug to fix. The ARM issue can wait, sure. We can also
> disable the test for ARM as this code never worked for ARM and it&#
On Sun, Dec 09, 2012 at 10:44:01PM +0100, grischka wrote:
> Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> >Also grischka writes:
> >>btest is not a feature that we can't recommend to use
> >>really (at least as long as tcc -btest tcc.c doesn't produce anything
> >>useful),
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 02:23:25PM +0100, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> Le jeudi 6 décembre 2012 04:50:55, vous avez écrit :
> > >
> > > Hi Kirill,
> > >
> > > did you make any progress on the issue since Daniel's comments? Could you
> > > let me know when you push a patch so that I can test it and
grischka writes:
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 11:26:32AM +0100, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> Le vendredi 30 novembre 2012 00:43:07, Daniel Glöckner a écrit :
> >
> > You should not look at a leaf function to derive the GCC stack frame.
> > It is probably different from the generic stack frame because GCC
> > knows this
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:05:19AM +0400, Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 02:43:34PM +0100, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> > Le samedi 24 novembre 2012 10:02:54, Kirill Smelkov a écrit :
> > >
> > > Thanks for the info. The progress on my side is as
On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 02:43:34PM +0100, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> Le samedi 24 novembre 2012 10:02:54, Kirill Smelkov a écrit :
> >
> > Thanks for the info. The progress on my side is as follows: I've learned
> > arm assembly and setup arm and armhf cross-toolch
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 11:19:24AM +0100, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 13:37:16 +0400, Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> >
> >I don't like that filter-out's. Actually, what I'd like to write here
> >is
> >
> >ifeq ($(CONFIG_TCC_BCH
( sorry for posting twice. I thought the first mail was lost on tmpfs
/tmp after neetbook lockup, but it looks like it already made it into
exim queue. Such things happens when you compose mail from the
underground in crush )
___
Tinycc-devel maili
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:30:04PM +0100, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:03:58 +0400, Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 03:29:26PM +0100, robo...@celest.fr wrote:
> >>Another regression is due to the unconditional activation of btest
>
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:30:04PM +0100, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:03:58 +0400, Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 03:29:26PM +0100, robo...@celest.fr wrote:
> >>Another regression is due to the unconditional activation of btest
>
e supporting it.
Sorry, my fault, that was late at night. Does the following patch fixes
btest issue for you?
8< ----
From: Kirill Smelkov
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:47:23 +0400
Subject: [PATCH] tests: btest should only run on targets supporting bcheck
After 40a54c43 (Repair bounds-checkin
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 03:50:28AM +0400, Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 04:28:40PM +0100, Michael Matz wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, 14 Nov 2012, Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> >
> > > I've fixed bounds checking mode and now btest passes on
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 04:28:40PM +0100, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012, Kirill Smelkov wrote:
>
> > I've fixed bounds checking mode and now btest passes on i386 and gcc-4.7
> > for me. The fixup involved touching X86_64 code though, which I have
cond patch - it
changes X86_64 assembly which I have no way to test - only guess my
changes are correct.
Thanks,
Kirill
8<
commit cffb7af9f96834623ee0ff6b7fb10d56c91efb99
Author: Kirill Smelkov
Date: Tue Nov 13 13:14:26 2012 +0400
lib/bcheck: Prevent __bound_local_new / __bound
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 08:51:06PM +0200, grischka wrote:
> Kirill Smelkov wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 12:36:23AM +0200, grischka wrote:
>>> Kirill Smelkov wrote:
>>>>> I have it as git branch btw. If anyone is interested I could push
>>>>> i
On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 12:36:23AM +0200, grischka wrote:
> Kirill Smelkov wrote:
>>> I have it as git branch btw. If anyone is interested I could push
>>> it on repo.or.cz.
>>
>> Yes, I'm interested. Could you please do so? Thanks.
>
> Well, now I don
Grischka, Rob, All,
On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 09:28:21PM +0200, grischka wrote:
> Rob Landley wrote:
>> On 07/07/2011 01:22 PM, grischka wrote:
>>> Anyway. As to the general issue with search paths, it would be good
>>> to find something clearer and more flexible.
>>
>> A quick check finds:
>>
>>
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 05:46:02PM +0200, grischka wrote:
> Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> >On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 01:17:07AM +0200, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> >>Greeting everybody,
> >>
> >>I don't know if I should announce every commit
On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 01:17:07AM +0200, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> Greeting everybody,
>
> I don't know if I should announce every commit I push to mob but here is
> another commit.
[...]
Let's maybe add something to "Commit notify - mail to" field at
http://repo.or.cz/editproj.cgi?name=tiny
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:07:58AM +0200, A. Klitzing wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Thank you very much. I patched the current mob branch with it and it
> works like a charm! Everything compiles and links... and my tests are
> "green". ;-)
>
> Seems that I'm 100% compatible with tcc without any hassle now. :-
#x27;-rpath,/home/andre/build/dynamic/build:/home/andre/build/dynamic/build/tests'
Please try this:
8<
>From 7901d1e3ad19b630c39388612a5ad7c0bf84df39 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kirill Smelkov
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 23:30:21 +0400
Subject: [PATCH] tcc_set_linker: mimic a
at 10:46:44PM +0400, Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> +tinycc-devel
>
> Hello up there!
>
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:50:07AM +0200, A. Klitzing wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > I'm trying to build my own project with another C compiler and
> > selected your tcc. I
+tinycc-devel
Hello up there!
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:50:07AM +0200, A. Klitzing wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I'm trying to build my own project with another C compiler and
> selected your tcc. It seems that it compiles my c files correctly but
> it fails on linking with the following message.
>
>
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 04:42:37PM +0200, Claudio Bley wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I just pushed a new change to the mob branch
> (http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git/commit/433ecdfc9d1402ecf03e710de481e2063ad6de90)
> adding support for C99 for loops a few hours ago.
>
> A simple test program works as expected:
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 06:26:35PM +0200, grischka wrote:
> Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> >On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 09:24:28PM +0200, grischka wrote:
> >>Did you consider pushing the feature(s) on the tinycc mob branch?
> >
> >Yes. And I though mob was a bit destabi
In build systems, this is used to automatically collect target
dependencies, e.g.
8< (hello.c)
#include "hello.h"
#include
int main()
{
printf("Hello World!\n");
return 0;
}
$ tcc -MD -c hello.c# -> hello.o, hello.d
$ cat hello.d
hello.o : \
This affectes where `tcc -E -MD file.c` will place generated dependency
information -- previously, for `tcc -E` output_default was a.out, and so
deps were put into a.d .
Avoid this behaviour, by treating `tcc -E` as `tcc -c` with respect to
output_default computation.
This will not hurt anything
From: Kirill Smelkov
No need to keep executable bit on plain C source.
---
0 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
mode change 100755 => 100644 i386-gen.c
diff --git a/i386-gen.c b/i386-gen.c
old mode 100755
new mode 100644
--
1.7.1.427.g95
files[0], and reloc_outpu will be needed for (upcoming in the next
patch) "compute default outfile name" refactored into libtcc function.
Also, since for symmetry and from libification point of view, it makes
some sense to also put all information about what was given as input to
compilation into
---
.gitignore |3 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index df16ed9..a845ddc 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -36,4 +36,5 @@ tcc.pod
config.h
config.mak
config.texi
-tests
\ No newline at end of file
+tests
+tags
--
1.7.1.4
Previously it was possible to specify e.g. -q and still link with
lib. Avoid such behaviour by checking for '-l' instead of '-l.'
---
tcc.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tcc.c b/tcc.c
index b9478d9..136612e 100644
--- a/tcc.c
+++ b/tcc.c
@@ -474,7 +474,7
From: Kirill Smelkov
Since for upcoming -MD support default _compile_ output file be needed
even when preprocesssing (tcc -E), let's move this code out of one
particular condition block into a common function, so that we could use
it in deps generation code too.
v2:
- As suggested by gri
This is evident, but won't hurt
---
libtcc.c |4
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/libtcc.c b/libtcc.c
index d3200ef..8ea5d42 100644
--- a/libtcc.c
+++ b/libtcc.c
@@ -168,6 +168,10 @@ PUB_FUNC char *tcc_basename(const char *name)
return p;
}
+/* extrac
From: Kirill Smelkov
We no longer use CVS, so let's teach Git about what files to ignore...
... though doing `git status` after make + `make test` still gives
untracked content:
# Untracked files:
# (use "git add ..." to include in what will be committed)
#
#
git pull git://repo.or.cz/tinycc/kirr.git tcc-MD
Thanks,
Kirill Smelkov (11):
.cvsignore -> .gitignore
.gitignore += *.o *.a
chmod a-x i386-gen.c
tcc: Fix typo in error (it's '%s', not '%s)
Add input files/libs and reloc_output switch to TCCState
tcc: Refact
From: Kirill Smelkov
---
tcc.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tcc.c b/tcc.c
index d0ed8f6..759151a 100644
--- a/tcc.c
+++ b/tcc.c
@@ -444,7 +444,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
} else {
s->outfile = fopen(outfile,
From: Kirill Smelkov
Ignores libtcc.o, libtcc.a and a bunch of other files (see previous
patch for details)
---
.gitignore |2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index 95daa1f..df16ed9 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -1,3
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 09:24:28PM +0200, grischka wrote:
> Did you consider pushing the feature(s) on the tinycc mob branch?
Yes. And I though mob was a bit destabilized by "last member of union"
patches, so I decided not to continue that.
Yes, I've read tinycc.git intro text about mob, and it's
---
tcc.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tcc.c b/tcc.c
index d0ed8f6..759151a 100644
--- a/tcc.c
+++ b/tcc.c
@@ -444,7 +444,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
} else {
s->outfile = fopen(outfile, "w");
if (!s->outfile)
Hello up there.
I'm trying to change gcc to tcc for faster develpment on slow machines, and the
first obstacle that turned out was lack of dependency generation on tcc side.
Please find attached patches that fix it.
Thanks,
Kirill
Kirill Smelkov (7):
.cvsignore -> .gitignore
.g
This affectes where `tcc -E -MD file.c` will place generated dependency
information -- previously, for `tcc -E` output_default was a.out, and so
deps were put into a.d .
Avoid this behaviour, by treating `tcc -E` as `tcc -c` with respect to
output_default computation.
This will not hurt anything
We no longer use CVS, so let's teach Git about what files to ignore...
... though doing `git status` after make + `make test` still gives
untracked content:
# Untracked files:
# (use "git add ..." to include in what will be committed)
#
# alloca86-bt.o
# alloca86
In build systems, this is used to automatically collect target
dependencies, e.g.
8< (hello.c)
#include "hello.h"
#include
int main()
{
printf("Hello World!\n");
return 0;
}
$ tcc -MD -c hello.c# -> hello.o, hello.d
$ cat hello.d
hello.o : \
Ignores libtcc.o, libtcc.a and a bunch of other files (see previous
patch for details)
---
.gitignore |2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index 95daa1f..df16ed9 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -1,3 +1,5 @@
+*.o
+*.a
tcc_g
No need to keep executable bit on plain C source.
---
0 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
mode change 100755 => 100644 i386-gen.c
diff --git a/i386-gen.c b/i386-gen.c
old mode 100755
new mode 100644
--
1.7.1.334.gebb7bc.dirty
___
Tinycc-
Since for upcoming -MD support default _compile_ output file be needed
even when preprocesssing (tcc -E), let's move this code out of condition
block and always compute outfile_default.
---
tcc.c | 45 +++--
1 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 22 deletions(
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 06:55:43PM +0200, grischka wrote:
> Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> >By the way, do you have an idea about when 0.9.26 is going to happen?
> >Even approximate timing helps...
>
> Can happen whenever people want. You'd just agree on a revision
> num
till there and saw it's now totally
untrue.
Someone (hear hear) should be almost happy, but until title page is
changend we are not 100% there yet :)
Good luck and thanks!
Kirill
> --- grischka
>
> Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> >It's been 1.5 years already [1], and Tinycc
It's been 1.5 years already [1], and Tinycc Savannah project page
references only Git without CVS [2], so let's maybe do
diff --git a/http://bellard.org/tcc/ b/http://bellard.org/tcc/
--- http://bellard.org/tcc/
+++ http://bellard.org/tcc/
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
Links
o TinyCC mailing list
- o Sa
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:20:28PM +0100, Marc Andre Tanner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 06:07:51PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > It's been 6 months, I thought I'd ask.
> >
> > People still occasionally email me links to a tcc git mirror (not sure
> > why),
> > and I reply that mirr
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 07:07:43PM +0100, grischka wrote:
> Kirill Smelkov wrote:
>> [...] But the problem turned out to be in `tcc -E` inability to
>> preserve
>> spaces between tokens. So e.g. the following ~/.Xresources
>>
>> XTerm*VT100*foreground: black
&
ld be never
0x8000, and thus removes the check from
while (b != 0x8000) {
...
completely.
If we want this check, we need b to be always 'unsigned'
Signed-off-by: Kirill Smelkov
---
tcctest.c |4
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --gi
Never though I will be hacking a compiler, but still it turned out to be so:
Kirill Smelkov (2):
string_test: we should always use 'unsigned int' for b
tcc -E: preserve spaces (partial solution)
tcc.c | 10 --
tcctest.c |4
2 files changed, 8 insert
quot;fix" for the problem.
It still does not preserve spaces on macro expansion, but since the fix
cures original problem, I think it is at least one step forward.
Signed-off-by: Kirill Smelkov
---
tcc.c | 10 --
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tcc.c
Grischka, all,
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 07:53:54PM +0200, grischka wrote:
> Thanks to Kirill Smelkov we have a public GIT repository now for our
> favorite TinyC Compiler.
>
> http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git
>
> To get into practice with GIT, I pushed the last ch
On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 12:32:25AM +0200, Daniel Glöckner wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2008 at 01:05:09AM +0400, Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> > Sorry for the noise again, but isn't this what cvsps does already for
> > ages?
>
> Wheels like being reinvented. :)
Yes, over
On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 07:50:58PM +0200, Daniel Glöckner wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> not trying to defend CVS, but somewhere in the tinycc CVS void between
> October 2006 and October 2007 Savannah switched to a version that logs
> commit IDs with each change. This allows to regroup changes in several
> fil
On Fri, Sep 05, 2008 at 02:50:51PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Friday 05 September 2008 14:08:48 Daniel Glöckner wrote:
> > At this point I would like to remind those who pick up the patches
> > that there are two other mails by me with uncommitted fixes:
> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/ti
64 matches
Mail list logo
