On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 at 07:22, Eric Raible wrote:
>
> The following program has an obvious bug, and both gcc and clang refuse
> to compile it with an on-point error. tcc produces an incorrect warning and
> creates code that has no chance of working:
>
>> typedef struct symbol symbol;
>> extern voi
Your code has undefined behaviour due to the buffer overflow of dst. Try this:
clang -x c -std=c11 -DDEBUG demo.tinyc -fsanitize=address -o dt && ./dt
On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 at 20:50, Stefanos via Tinycc-devel
wrote:
>
> Greetings everyone,
>
> I hope I find you well.
>
> I was playing with C and
st
- https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/tinycc-devel/2018-07/msg0.html
Personally, I made the symbol weak too -
https://github.com/bobrippling/ucc-c-compiler/blob/master/src/rt/dsohandle.c
hth,
Rob
On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 at 16:18, C.J. Wagenius wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Trying to compile a pr
On 04/10/2015 01:15 AM, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 1:44 PM, Sergey Korshunoff wrote:
>> Hi!
>> Only now I found an interesting proposal by Rob Landley:
>> http://elinux.org/CELF_Project_Proposal/Combine_tcg_with_tcc
>>
>> Is there any work
On 25/02/14, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 09:06:20PM +, Rob wrote:
On 24/02/14, Sylvain BERTRAND wrote:
Hi,
Is there on-going effort to add the support of code block
expression?
a = ({int b; b = 10; b +=1; b;});
Seems fine to me? It's a GNU extension btw [1]
main()
{
int a = ({int b; b = 10; b +=1; b;});
return a;
}
$ tcc -run expr-stmt.c
$ echo $?
11
Seems fine to me? It's a GNU extension btw [1]
Rob
1: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Statement-
On Wed, 11 Dec 2013, Jared Maddox wrote:
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 23:27:37 + (GMT)
From: Rob
Odd, msvc isn't a C99 compiler, didn't expect it to conform.
As I best recall, MSVC has always (well, always since C99 was
announced, anyways) had whatever C99 features that it's m
Sorry about the wait in my reply. Good to see it works for you, today
I'm looking at getting tcc to do 'the right thing' with inline
functions, I'll let you know if I have anything worth pushing to mob.
Rob
On Thu, 12 Dec 2013, Pierre wrote:
I have tested the changes in
off to bed shortly. I do
think tcc should remain standard-compliant though, and not imply static
or extern from just 'inline'. Perhaps we need another flag?
Rob
On Wed, 11 Dec 2013, Pierre wrote:
yes I think you are right, it is same with msvc v6.
I don't know well the tcc code,
th 'gcc -std=c99 -O1', as f isn't referenced (since it's
inlined by an optimiser).
Also, I checked - gcc defaults to -std=gnu89, which means gnu89 inline
semantics, so when testing, make sure you give it '-std=c99'.
Clang exhibits the same behaviour w.r.t. inline, s
On Wed, 11 Dec 2013, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
Le mercredi 11 décembre 2013, 09:28:07 Christian JULLIEN a écrit :
I knew about the fact that it is a hint and I knew even when inlined, the
function still needs to be output in case its address is used. However I
forgot about the other details. I st
ich a translator may use to implement any call to
the function in the same translation unit. It is unspecified whether a
call to the function uses the inline definition or the external
definition." - C99, 6.7.4
Rob
On Sat, 7 Dec 2013, Christian Jullien wrote:
Sorry if doubled-posted b
On Sat, 7 Dec 2013, Christian Jullien wrote:
Hi x86/x64 Windows maintainers,
This morning, I chekouted the latest TCC version from mod to update tcc on
Windows (both x86/x64).
It used to work flawlessly (my latest successful build was made on October).
Using gcc, I now get an error because _
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 09:23:58PM -0500, Jared Maddox wrote:
> > Yes, as you got below I meant removing functions such as
> >
> > if (0)
> >some_function();
> >
> > The "problem" is that many applications use this construct instead of
> > adding #ifdefs everywhere.
>
> So I've heard. Just use
d asked him to name his price. He said he wasn't
interested. The "PS" I didn't reproduce in that blog entry was
(rummages in email...)
Message-ID: <4fb0ccef.1040...@bellard.org>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 11:14:23 +0200
From: Fabrice Bellard
To: Rob Landley
tatically
linked.
Be that as it may, static linking could be taken care of with a
license exception.
Android has an official "No GPL in Userspace" policy (which includes
LGPL). A vendor who adds GPL software to their install image cannot use
the Android trademark to describe
t
even know, who have zero ongoing relationship with the project.
What makes you think you _can_ relicense your version?
Rob
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
;s
done since then. *shrug*)
Rob
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
le will
check it out. I'm interested in what changes you've made anyways.
Also hello!
Cheers,
Rob
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
bles?
> I'm trying to use this to build a faster cgi on my web host - so
> without environment variables, I'm toast.
It's pretty hacky, but does something like this work?
If not it may be a problem with pts-tcc/statically linking with uclibc.
Rob
#include
#include
char *ge
On 2 April 2013 16:17, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2013 at 03:29:29PM +0200, grischka wrote:
>> Rob wrote:
>> >Anyways, perhaps there should be a -fcommon flag on tcc, just like
>> >gcc/clang.
>>
>> -f[no]-common already exists in tcc.
On 2 April 2013 13:10, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 10:41:44PM +0100, Rob wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 09:27:22PM +0200, Lluís Batlle i Rossell wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 01, 2013 at 08:58:06PM +0200, Daniel Glöckner wrote:
> > > > On M
ifier, is a tentative
* definition"
*/
Outputs nothing.
Anyway, this is more to do with a single translation unit, your issue is
with the same definition in multiple object files (I say definition from
the multiple declarations being collapsed into one definition).
Easy enough to change in tcc but I'm interested what the C Standard says
on this.
Rob
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
file2.c:
#include "header.h"
GCC and Clang allow these to be merged together at link-time, which
means users who make mistakes such as missing `extern' in header files
still get the multiple definitions merged.
tcc is stricter and perhaps more conformant in disallowing thi
I'm sure this is non standard / gcc specific.
What you want:
cd project/include
export MY_INCLUDE_PATH=`pwd`
cd ../examples
tcc -I"$MY_INCLUDE_PATH" example.c
On 18 February 2013 21:46, Андрей Аладьев wrote:
> cd project/include
> export C_INCLUDE_PATH=`pwd`
> cd ../examples
> tcc example.c
This is because OSSwapInt16 uses both uint16_t and __uint16_t, neither
of which are declared (via typedefs) beforehand.
Perhaps there's some missing macro to trigger this in the Darwin system headers.
Adding this to the start of your file seems to fix things, anyway:
typedef unsigned short __uint
Cool, thanks. I'll keep an eye on it
On 5 November 2012 22:21, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Rob wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 11:19:00PM +0900, Hitoshi Mitake wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 11:04 PM, Thomas Preud'homme
>>
don't think we should not follow C99 on this.
> >
>
> OK, I understand the direction of TCC.
> I'll implement == for field by field comparison only for my toy if I'll do :)
>
> Thanks,
Regardless, I'd be interested in seeing your branch of tcc if you have it
hosted anywhere?
Thanks,
Rob
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:16:28PM +0200, Stephan Beal wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Rob wrote:
>
> > However this seems fine by the man page:
> >
> > > The argument type is a type name specified so that the type of a
> > > pointer to an objec
something like this will work:
void *tmp = va_arg(ap, void *);
pMkr->xFactory = tmp;
Although the C-standard says that it's implementation defined for converting
between function pointers and non-function pointers.
Cheers,
Rob
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
ommands (in case of e.g. tcc-boot)?
Seems like an interesting idea, but would tcc make then tag on a call to
tcc -run? I don't see how this can offer advantages over the standard
make.
> 2) How about preprocessor extensions? I've thought about two types of
> loop
mprove your knowledge and estimated.
Exactly this. Writing a compiler has taught me so much more about the
lesser known bits of C, and things like type annotation along
expressioon trees and so on..
Interesting stuff
Rob
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tiny
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Rob wrote:
> > I'm currently writing one of my own. The code it produces is very very
> > suboptimal because I haven't written an optimiser for it yet, but I hope
> > the actual parsing and syntax-tree code is straightforward.
&g
I have a type
parsing branch, and my local working copy is almost ready to merge, then
I'll have function pointer support.
Next on the list is structs, enums and floats, then it may be able to
compile itself.
Thanks,
Rob
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
On 29 October 2011 22:59, Lee wrote:
> Is there any way to force tcc to compile to asm (gcc -S parameter)? I
> imagine one would need
> to compile tcc from sources - I admit, I haven't studied them.
In short, no. tcc outputs straight to object-code, you could run
objdump -D path/to/file.o
though.
On 09/30/2011 05:50 PM, grischka wrote:
> Rob Landley wrote:
>> There were a functions named g() and o() which were IMPOSSIBLE to
>> grep for...
>
> Because you don't know how to use grep.
Because I don't want to drop out of my text editor and grep from the
comman
rsion. I wouldn't mind so much if you didn't REFUSE TO TAKE
>> OBVIOUS THINGS that you're now finding a need for all these years later.
>>
>> Sigh. I'm going to go back to ignoring this list now. I should go
>> catch up on the pcc and llvm lists...
>&
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 5:41 PM, grischka wrote:
> Rob Heatherly wrote:
>>
>> tcc -Wall -Wunsupported -bench -shared -soname libyLOG.so.1 -o
>> libyLOG.so.1.0 -lrt yLOG.c
>>
>> It performs as expected when my main program is compiled with tcc, but
>> when
First post, starting small, be kind ;) If I should redirect the
question elsewhere, just say the word.
I have compiled a series of personal shared libraries using the latest
mob/git version of tcc on x86_64 gentoo and it handled them very well
(thanks). I then call them from both tcc and gcc exe
On 07/09/2011 02:28 PM, 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:
iler BOF in 2008,
which there's video of, but that's a lot to wade through. (The rant
about how a compiler isn't fundamentally different than a docbook->PDF
converter.)
Rob
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
> Adding some option
> ->tcc - hello.c
> -> ^Z
> <- file a.exe (executable)
> or
> ->tcc - -c
> -> ^Z
> <- file a.out (object)
There's no problem here, in the first one, main() is presumably in
hello.c, and this is linked with the empty file from stdin,
> It is about heavy macro expansion, however would like to know if there
> are some known issues with C99 features, that would cause the macro
> expansions to fail...
tcc doesn't do nested macro expansion properly yet, as far as I'm aware.
___
Tinycc-de
> if (libprefix && (!strncmp(ext, ".so", 2))) {
> size_t len = ext - filename - 3;
> strncpy(libname, filename + 3, len);
> *(libname + len) = '\0';
> return 1;
> }
>
> I also wonder wether is strncmp is a good idea here as it could match .s
On Friday 20 March 2009 13:32:29 grischka wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Rob Landley"
> To: "Joshua Phillips"
> Cc:
> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 5:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Is the CVS repository dead yet?
>
> > On Thursd
On Friday 20 March 2009 11:48:02 Rob Landley wrote:
> On Friday 20 March 2009 10:46:47 grischka wrote:
> > > > Grischka as well takes care of mirroring cvs on
> > > > http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git
> > >
> > > Ah, a mirror. So CVS is the offic
27;m using GIT for TinyCC ever since pre 0.9.24.
There's no mention of it on tinycc.org. (There _is_ still a link to the CVS
repository.)
Where is it, by the way?
> It is just that I run a script from time to time that updates the CVS at
> Savannah from the master branch and al
On Thursday 19 March 2009 10:30:53 Joshua Phillips wrote:
> Rob,
>
> I feel your pain :(
>
> I have had a look at the tcc git repository and it has many duplicated
> commits (rebased?) and is a complete and utter mess.
>
> Unfortunately, in my opinion, CVS (and SVN, too,
On Wednesday 18 March 2009 15:10:32 Daniel Glöckner wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 05:05:09PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > On Thursday 12 March 2009 16:20:28 Marc Andre Tanner wrote:
> > > grischka and Daniel you are the ones who actually committed code during
> > > t
On Sunday 15 March 2009 10:01:25 Joshua Phillips wrote:
> Rob said he's waiting for the CVS repository to be dead. Tcc isn't entirely
> dead.
Merely pining for the fijords. The project is so healthy that my question
about the status of the repository a _week_ ago has y
On Thursday 12 March 2009 16:20:28 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
> &
s" page that's moved. Not exactly heavy on the
announcements. A quick glance at the archives wasn't enlightening...
So I'm asking.
Rob
(It's like groundhog's day: I pop my head out, see CVS, and go away for 6
months...)
/archive/html/tinycc-devel/2006-09/msg00024.html
Almost immediately, he explicitly dismissed a change of source control type as
being important:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/tinycc-devel/2006-09/msg00058.html
I stopped particularly expecting a move off CVS to ever happen back in
February
Anyone care to continue
> that? So that's one data point. It says we need muscle.
>
> No muscle, no results. Need'um reliable muscle first, else
> everything is stuck. Even the scenario where you (Rob) kindly send
> patches over under LGPLv2 requires muscle plus a distributed
ng at a brisk clip.
My fork got up a good head of steam three times (and I was taking other
people's patches), and then the cvs started up again and I walked away. Now
there's been a _release_ from the cvs, and I've walked a lot farther away.
*shrug* If you're happy with that, by all means...
Rob
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
move off of CVS, let me know. But it's 2008, CVS
is dead, and I've run out of the patience necromancy requires.
> Daniel
Rob
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
d be better off generating an Intermediate code from the GA, and then
running that through register assignment.
--
Rob
> Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 14:47:45 +0200
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
> Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Usi
ved work standpoint.
> Please correct me if I am wrong.
I'm not sure you are, but I'm not interested in pursuing the thread. (I
haven't been paying close attention to this list, just saw my name mentioned.
Wouldn't have replied otherwise.)
I'll wande
On Friday 06 June 2008 15:34:41 Ivo wrote:
> If you use Rob Landley's fork, your application must be GPL as Rob switched
> to the GPL for all of tinycc.
Thanks for the FUD, but if you'd bothered to read the README:
> License:
> ---
>
> Tinycc is distributed unde
t a 2.4 kernel (not
2.6), building only a subset of the full kernel sources, and it was a
modified subset to work around constructs that tcc didn't understand. (I
plan to revive tccboot with tinycc, but first I'd like to get tinycc to build
a User Mode Linux kernel that works.)
But, all
w that qemu can run actual MacosX I need to give it another try. (This
is assuming I don't break down and get an iPhone. :)
Rob
--
"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code."
- Ken Thompson.
___
Tinycc-d
e_ about Win32 again. (It comes right after arm on my
todo list, which came after i386. I may start caring about c67 if anybody
ever tells me what it _is_, but fourth on my list is adding an x86-64 output
target. And then fifth would be either PPC or mips. Yes, adding more 32 bit
targets wou
tain
bad built-in assumptions that don't apply to windows, where executable is
basically statically linked as far as system libraries go, although you need
about 5 .a libraries in order to perform the static linking.)
If he'd treated me like you treated that guy, I probably woul
east have a fair bit of self-sufficiency.
>
> Perhaps you can help us by diagnosing the problem (you can build
> it, so would you like to try some debugging?) and give us a useful
> lead so that one of the active developers on this list can issue a
> patch with the minimum of fuss. Y
fter that is adding an x86-64
target (that's what my laptop's running now), and then I'll get back to
seeing about getting the sucker to build an unmodified Linux kernel and
uClibc and such.
I check here from time to time to see if anybody's found any interesting new
bugs, bu
On Thursday 04 October 2007 8:51:20 pm Rob Landley wrote:
> I had this window open to reply to, but I was uninvited from the project
> and have stopped working on it now. If you want to talk to somebody about
> it, there's always the mailing list...
>
> Rob
Sorry, didn'
I had this window open to reply to, but I was uninvited from the project and
have stopped working on it now. If you want to talk to somebody about it,
there's always the mailing list...
Rob
On Tuesday 11 September 2007 2:17:01 pm Gabriel Corneanu wrote:
> My comments inserted:
>
On Thursday 04 October 2007 3:08:49 pm Simon 'corecode' Schubert wrote:
> Actually I
> think you should send your grumpy comments to yourself and leave this
> list (alone).
*shrug* Ok.
Bye.
Rob
--
"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of
On Thursday 04 October 2007 1:05:25 am Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 10:49:44PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > The draft standard I have is 1.5 megabytes of ascii text (ok, html) that
> > reads like it was written by lawyers. I use it to break
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 10:30:12 pm Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 05:17:23PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > If you jump inside its scope you must initialize it (call alloca).
>
> I'm a little worried about the "use alloca" thing you hav
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 2:28:17 am Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 02:12:27AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > P.S. I'm still boggling you can do "int a[42], b(char *c);" But
> > apparently, yes you can.
>
> Sure you can. Of course,
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 7:49:53 am Daniel Glöckner wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 01:59:47AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > It boils down to a funky call to alloca()...
>
> One thing to note is that memory for VLAs is freed when the block ends.
> GCC does this by saving
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 2:24:23 am Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 01:59:47AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > int a[*] (the asterisk is literal) is allowed in parameter declarations
> > > in function prototypes but not in function definitions. The
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 12:10:17 am Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 06:26:58PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > Confirmed that gcc makes sizeof() a runtime function in this case:
> >
> > #include
> >
> > int main(int argc, char *argv[])
&
On Wednesday 03 October 2007 12:07:21 am Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 12:19:18PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > Any opinions on how to tackle this one?
>
> No. But I'll summarise (NOT quote) the C99 rules, in case it's helpful.
> Feel free to
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 8:57:36 pm Hanzac Chen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I found that tcc_free is removed but still used in these two files ...
>
> Bye ...
Ah, sorry. Just committed a fix.
I'm trying to implement dynamic arrays before cutting a release. It's making
my brain
On Tuesday 02 October 2007 12:19:18 pm Rob Landley wrote:
> Any opinions on how to tackle this one?
Confirmed that gcc makes sizeof() a runtime function in this case:
#include
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int walrus[atoi(argv[1])];
printf("%d\n", sizeof(walrus)
omponent *__hidden_comps_ptr = \
alloca(sizeof(struct demangle_component)*di.num_comps);
#define comps (*__hidden_comps_ptr);
Except that sizeof(comps) will return sizeof(struct demangle_component *)
instead of the size passed to alloca().
Any opinions on how to tackle this one?
Rob
--
"O
src
> make -f Makefile.ref CC=tcc
Ok, I think I've fixed the last of this now. This package compiled to the end
for me with tcc. I don't know if the result works, but the test suite checks
out...
Rob
--
"One of my most productive days
On Sunday 30 September 2007 2:13:37 pm Jakob Eriksson wrote:
> > Anybody else understand what this is doing?
>
> By the way, this is (almost) the patch Rob was referring to.
>
> regards,
> Jakob
And here's what I told him at the time:
On Tuesday 25 September 2007 3:54:
is "SBB Gb, Eb" and I have no _IDEA_ what that means, but google
probably will... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_assembly_language
says "subtraction with borrow". Ok...
Anybody else understand what this is doing?
Rob
--
"One
On Saturday 29 September 2007 6:14:59 am Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2007 at 02:59:29PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > Does the c99 spec say that undefined is < 2? (Probably, I'm a bit rushed
> > just now, and likely to be out of touch this weekend. Vi
is the result of using the gnu _("ugh") internationalization macros...
I've bookmarked this but probably won't have time to look at it before
monday...
Rob
--
"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code."
- Ken Thompson.
_
t; defined at all.
Does the c99 spec say that undefined is < 2? (Probably, I'm a bit rushed just
now, and likely to be out of touch this weekend. Visiting grandparents.)
I'm guessing this is a glibc bug, but I don't know.
Rob
--
"One of my most productive days was th
> What do you all think? Should we start doing that, it could get really
> noisy though.
I think I can live with the noise of patches posted to a development mailing
list. :)
Rob
--
"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code."
- Ken Thompson.
On Thursday 27 September 2007 7:01:29 pm Rob Landley wrote:
> Anyway, bug #1 should be fixed, bug #3 I'm working on, and afterwards I can
> tackle bug #2 and _then_ you should be able to compile jslong.c. :)
I _think_ I just got bug #3 fixed. My brain is kind of fried right now
tho
o more known bugs" isn't likely to happen any time soon, and I
have so many pending patches to look through at this point I'm fairly certain
I'm going to forget some when I go back to apply them. (The tiny amount of
time I've stolen to work on this has focused on trackin
nyway, bug #1 should be fixed, bug #3 I'm working on, and afterwards I can
tackle bug #2 and _then_ you should be able to compile jslong.c. :)
(At least as far as the next bug...)
Rob
--
"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code."
- Ken Thompson.
__
On Wednesday 26 September 2007 2:52:27 am Dave Dodge wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 01:23:32AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > Hmmm... What about #warning as last line of the file with no newline at
> > the end of the line?
>
> FWIW, the grammar for most preprocessing
On Wednesday 26 September 2007 2:44:25 am Dave Dodge wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2007 at 12:11:58AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > I realize that they want to restrict their relevance as much as
> > possible, and thus have no _official_ version freely available on
> > the web.
&g
or
it to do so. Then all the nocode_wanted tests can go away. Might waste a
little ram at runtime, but it does that anyway, and something like that gives
us the possibility of doing dead code elimination for if(0) intelligently yet
revert to outputting code after the fact if there's a ju
void warn ( const char * format , ... )
>__attribute__ ( ( format ( printf , ( 1 ) , ( 2 ) ) ) ) ;
> EOF
I did a smaller version of this patch. Close enough?
Rob
--
"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code."
- Ken Thompson.
___
lt; EOF
> #if 0
> #warning This doesn't work
> #endif
> EOF
>
> tcc -c bug.c
> bug3.c:4: missing terminating ' character
>
> gcc -c bug.c
>
> Marc
Ah, good catch.
Hmmm... What about #warning as last line of the file with no newline at the
en
is has nothing to do
with people who fail to get it that spectacularly.
> -Dave Dodge
Rob
--
"One of my most productive days was throwing away 1000 lines of code."
- Ken Thompson.
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
ile the code as C90 with GNU extensions. No
> wonder it barfs about "restrict", as it is a C99 thing!
>
> Try with -std=c99.
*shrug* Either way I applied a patch to ignore it which fixed the problem I
actually saw.
Rob
--
On Friday 21 September 2007 6:36:57 pm Dave Dodge wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 06:04:01PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > I have a draft of the spec itself, in html format.
>
> BTW (this has probably been mentioned before) n1124 is a newer
> freely-available draft, which is
On Friday 21 September 2007 3:02:19 am Marc Andre Tanner wrote:
> Rob Landley wrote:
> > On Thursday 20 September 2007 4:00:33 pm Marc Andre Tanner wrote:
> >> And since recent tcc sets __STDC_VERSION__ to 199901L __restrict_arr is
> >> defined as restrict which cau
On Friday 21 September 2007 8:41:58 am Gregg Reynolds wrote:
> > Seriously. It is a reference book on C written to complement K&R and
> > has been used as such since the first edition in the eighties (predating
> > the standard).
>
> Rob, you'd probably
On Friday 21 September 2007 4:23:11 am Dave Dodge wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 11:38:11PM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > On Thursday 20 September 2007 9:35:05 pm Gregg Reynolds wrote:
> > > On 9/20/07, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > means is
On Friday 21 September 2007 4:58:37 am Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 10:02:19AM +0200, Marc Andre Tanner wrote:
> > Rob Landley wrote:
> >> tcc knows how to handle restrict when it's applied in other contexts,
> >> but in this context it s
1 - 100 of 356 matches
Mail list logo
