tinycc community -
I found and submitted tinycc bug #50847: #line directive corrupts #include
search path
https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/index.php?50847
Three comments:
1. The submission wraps the test case in a tidy (485 byte) tarball.
For lazyweb members who don't want to unpack that, ther
grischka -
On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 09:20:53PM +0200, grischka wrote:
> Larry Doolittle wrote:
> >3. I put together a brain-dead patch to tinycc mob HEAD,
> >that touches three lines total and seems to do the job.
> >It is arguably somewhat wasteful of scratch memory.
> Pu
Friends -
commit 7acf9aa8 from earlier today took away the x (execute) permission
bits on configure. That means the instructions in README
./configure
make
make test
make install
don't work any more. Just FYI, maybe you want to put those bits back,
or update the README to say "sh con
tinycc community -
I found and submitted tinycc bug #50847: #line directive corrupts #include
search path
https://savannah.nongnu.org/bugs/index.php?50847
Three comments:
1. The submission wraps the test case in a tidy (485 byte) tarball.
For lazyweb members who don't want to unpack that, ther
Micheal, Marc, and tinycc lurkers -
On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 04:54:38AM +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Marc Vertes wrote:
> >I just committed the patch to support musl-libc in the tcc
> >compiler development branch: http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git
> > [...]
> >Dear tinycc develope
On Sat, May 06, 2017 at 08:54:45PM -0700, Larry Doolittle wrote:
> I just made a quick attempt to build gcc-4.7.4 with current git tcc.
> It made it through about 337 compiles before failing on
> ../.././gcc/c-family/c-opts.c:141: error: ';' expected (got "=")
Removi
Michael -
On Sun, May 07, 2017 at 08:16:08AM +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
> On debian, if you have libc6-dev and musl-dev installed you get a
> [mess that doesn't work with tinycc].
> So, yeah, the detection/support of musl
> is early and doesn't work with the split-mind approach that debian
> is us
Esteemed tinycc maintainers -
One of my hobbies is turning up the C compiler warning level in projects
I'm interested in, and seeing what lint shows up. Tinycc is really pretty
clean.
Using gcc's -Wextra, I found 17 "unused parameter", which could be
addressed by bloating the source code a bit (
Michael -
On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 05:40:38AM +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
> On Sun, 7 May 2017, Larry Doolittle wrote:
> >Using gcc's -Wextra, I found 17 "unused parameter",
> If the silencing really should happen (e.g. by void casting, as you
> say) I have no big op
grischka -
On Mon, May 08, 2017 at 07:27:08PM +0200, grischka wrote:
> Larry Doolittle wrote:
> >I committed (to mob) one patch that should count as progress.
> >Remove some unused-parameter lint
>
> In my book that counts as visual clutter with no practical benef
clang complains
about the original form.
- Larry
> -Original Message-
> From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org]
> On Behalf Of grischka
> Sent: mardi 9 mai 2017 10:26
> To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
> Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] tiny bit of
grischka -
On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 05:44:28PM +0200, grischka wrote:
> If people are going to use clang more likely, can't you add something
> to configure for clang to turn off some silly warnings?
> That would be USEFUL, for example ;)
The clang flag to turn off this warning is -Wno-string-plus
grischka -
On Tue, May 09, 2017 at 07:33:28PM +0200, grischka wrote:
> Yes, the configure warning magic doesn't work with clang. And
> hence my question was:
> Can you fix this?
> Means: recognize if $CC is clang and implement some method to
> disable its warnings in configure. Can you do
tinycc maintainers -
I know there's been a lot of work on bitfields lately.
Here's a stand-alone code snippet extracted from libgtk2.0-dev that triggers
one of the new warnings:
/usr/include/gtk-2.0/gtk/gtktable.h:99: warning: will touch memory past end of
the struct (internal limitation)
typed
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
pro
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.
> T
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
https://lis
On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 07:40:32PM +0200, grischka wrote:
> Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> >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:
Friends -
Someone asked about c89. I made a simple experiment on mob.
1. Replace 67 //-style comments with /* */
2. #define inline __inline__ in tcc.h
3. Use --std=c89 under gcc-4.9.2 on x86_64
The result builds and passes self-tests.
Note that by construction, this doesn't check tcc's non-x
Friends -
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 03:49:09PM -0700, Larry Doolittle wrote:
> Someone asked about c89. I made a simple experiment on mob.
> 1. Replace 67 //-style comments with /* */
> 2. #define inline __inline__ in tcc.h
> 3. Use --std=c89 under gcc-4.9.2 on x86_64
> The re
Edmund -
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 06:42:45AM +0100, Edmund Grimley Evans wrote:
> > I went through the tcc compile with --std=c89 -pedantic and
> > --std=c99 -pedantic options. That flagged the "long long" feature
> > mentioned already, plus a bunch more potential barriers to strict
> > c89 or eve
Friends -
On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 07:15:11PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2019-06-21 18:25:29 +0200, Ivo van Poorten wrote:
> > clang/llvm. gcc is on its way out IMHO. Apple uses clang [...]
Troll alert. :-)
> Every compiler has its own benefits. That's why tcc still exists
> in particula
Pursuer -
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 11:27:05PM +0800, Pursuer wrote:
> I'm sorry that I pull code in wrong way.
> And now there are many commit like
> Merge branch 'mob' of git://repo.or.cz/tinycc into mob
> How can I remove them.
Obligatory xkcd:
https://xkcd.com/1597/
There are fancier (
Colleagues -
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 05:06:02PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2021, Stefanos wrote:
> > The following line in commit 48df89e10e confused me a bit: "don't use
> > c99 in tcc (array designators etc.)"
> > Which C version is being used in TCC's implementation, can you pl
lrd -
On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 12:01:09PM +0800, lrt via Tinycc-devel wrote:
> Who can tell me how to make TCC support utf8.
> I want to use the Unicode API.
Just .. don't.
‘Trojan Source’ Bug Threatens the Security of All Code
November 1, 2021
https://krebsonsecurity.com/2021/11/trojan-source-bu
25 matches
Mail list logo
