Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

t; [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] > On Behalf Of grischka > Sent: dimanche 7 mai 2017 12:45 > To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org > Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning > > Christian Jullien wrote: >> So, gentlemen, it seems that at least one A

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

nongnu.org] On Behalf Of grischka Sent: dimanche 7 mai 2017 12:45 To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning Christian Jullien wrote: So, gentlemen, it seems that at least one ARM configuration/option requires the offending code having test on an uninitial

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

a Sent: dimanche 7 mai 2017 12:45 To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning Christian Jullien wrote: > So, gentlemen, it seems that at least one ARM configuration/option > requires the offending code having test on an uninitialized value. > > Commenting us

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

Christian Jullien wrote: So, gentlemen, it seems that at least one ARM configuration/option requires the offending code having test on an uninitialized value. Commenting using #if will fail if "arm-fpa-ld" is used. Can you please take a moment to investigate and propose the right fix. Nope.

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

al Message- From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On Behalf Of grischka Sent: dimanche 7 mai 2017 11:11 To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning Christian Jullien wrote: > Especially if " LDOUBLE_SIZE != 8 is not possible

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

Christian Jullien wrote: Especially if " LDOUBLE_SIZE != 8 is not possible in any arm config" why is there such a test in arm-gen.c code? The "arm-fpa-ld" variant gets LDOUBLE_SIZE=12 passed from the Makefile. -- gr ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tin

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

1 >= 0) ? a1 : -a1); return s ? ret : -ret; } +#endif -Original Message- From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On Behalf Of Michael Matz Sent: dimanche 7 mai 2017 08:22 To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning Hi

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

Hi, On Sun, 7 May 2017, Christian Jullien wrote: Forget one moment what has been said so far and concentrate on my concern with narrowed info. Facts: Yes, all known and agreed upon. * Finally, arm-gen.c uses TOK___fixxfdi with yet another #if condition => LDOUBLE_SIZE != 8 #if LDOUBLE_SIZ

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

with a test on a uninitialized value. Not to say that the combination (or lack of combination) for this code is far from consistent across the different files that use it. -Original Message- From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On Behalf Of Michael

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

Hi, On Sat, 6 May 2017, Christian Jullien wrote: I'm a bit confused now. As documented and pointed out by grischka /* only for x86 */ union ldouble_long { long double ld; struct { unsigned long long lower; unsigned short upper; } l; }; ldouble_long should only be used by

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

) #else else if(r2 == VT_LDOUBLE || r2 == VT_DOUBLE) #endif func=TOK___fixdfdi; } -Original Message- From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On Behalf Of Michael Matz Sent: samedi 6 mai 2017 07:24 To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org Subject: Re

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

Hi, On Sat, 6 May 2017, Christian Jullien wrote: Using your advice, I added #if !defined(TCC_TARGET_ARM) around all code directly or indirectly using ldouble_long which solved warning. But you now also ifdefed out __fixunsdfdi and __fixdfdi. That can't work, they are called from the backen

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

-Original Message- From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On Behalf Of grischka Sent: vendredi 5 mai 2017 15:05 To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning Christian JULLIEN wrote: > Grischka, > > it was my first

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

Christian JULLIEN wrote: Grischka, it was my first attempt with fprintf+exit(0) but I found that none was available in libtcc. I vote for _xxx_abort(const char* msg); Christian Nope. Just #ifdef out the entire function. --- grischka ___ Tinycc

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

On 2017-05-05 13:02:05 +0200, grischka wrote: > Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > But this can hide bugs, e.g. if in the future this function is called > > by the ARM backend. It would be better either not to define this > > function at all (best solution at it doesn't make sense on the ARM, > > and issue

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

-devel@nongnu.org> Objet : Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2017-05-05 17:29:22 +1000, William Hales wrote: >> This is his message, copied and pasted: >> >>> Hi Vincent, >>> >>> return 666; works equally well as it sh

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

Vincent Lefevre wrote: On 2017-05-05 17:29:22 +1000, William Hales wrote: This is his message, copied and pasted: Hi Vincent, return 666; works equally well as it should not be called by ARM backend. This is a workaround to remove warning. But this can hide bugs, e.g. if in the future this

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

Hopefully this email will not suffer the same problem. Vincent: what mail client are you using? Mutt. I choose to display the text/plain part by default (thus not needing an HTML parser, with potential security issues). Gah, sorry. I meant to ask Christian: what client are you using? Regard

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

On 2017-05-05 17:29:22 +1000, William Hales wrote: > This is his message, copied and pasted: > > > Hi Vincent, > > > > return 666; works equally well as it should not be called by ARM backend. > > > > This is a workaround to remove warning. But this can hide bugs, e.g. if in the future this fun

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

I can see his message on my (HTML) client A little investigation: it seems that Christian's email came in two forms (HTML and plaintext), but only one of them contains his message: --=_Part_3272_615315037.1493968868262 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quot

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

On 2017-05-05 09:21:08 +0200, Christian JULLIEN wrote: > ___ > Tinycc-devel mailing list > Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel Your message is empty. -- Vincent Lefèvre - Web: 100%

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

On 2017-05-05 06:46:27 +0200, Christian Jullien wrote: > Ok, I tried this patch which allowed me to run my complete non-regression > test suite without problem on ARM. > > Do you agree I push this patch in mob? > > diff --git a/lib/libtcc1.c b/lib/libtcc1.c > index 9195489..bcdfb0b 100644 > --- a

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

e Sent: mercredi 3 mai 2017 11:27 To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning On 2017-05-03 11:39:16 +0200, grischka wrote: > Interesting. Obviously I removed the suppression of some warnings, > among them "uninitialized" ;) See the change i

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

On 2017-05-03 11:39:16 +0200, grischka wrote: > Interesting. Obviously I removed the suppression of some warnings, > among them "uninitialized" ;) See the change in configure: > > -W_OPTIONS="deprecated-declarations strict-aliasing pointer-sign\ > sign-compare unused-result u

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

Christian Jullien wrote: After doing a dichotomy search I found that: 2017-02-13 grischka mems & leaks commit was the last commit WITHOUT this warning Next commit also made by grischka, introduced this warning: 2017-02-13 grischka updates & cleanups (tcc-doc/Changelog/TODO ...) I see no obvio

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

Grischka that may cause this warning to appear. Christian -Original Message- From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On Behalf Of Vincent Lefevre Sent: mardi 2 mai 2017 15:26 To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning On

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

On 2017-05-02 14:24:22 +0200, Christian Jullien wrote: > When I see this warning, it makes me think that application will produce > unpredictable results based on value on stack. > That's why I consider this as an annoying warning. Certainly, but providing fake initialization may have the conseque

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

gis=orange...@nongnu.org] On Behalf Of grischka Sent: mardi 2 mai 2017 14:05 To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning Christian Jullien wrote: > So do you agree if I push this patch which works in all cases (even > with dead code :o) > +dl1.l.upper = 0;

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

Christian Jullien wrote: So do you agree if I push this patch which works in all cases (even with dead code :o) +dl1.l.upper = 0; +dl1.l.lower = 0; No, please, we do not fix warnings in functions for platforms where the function cannot be used as pointed out just by that warning. Wh

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

ehalf Of Michael Matz Sent: mardi 2 mai 2017 02:01 To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning Hi, On Mon, 1 May 2017, Daniel Glöckner wrote: > On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 07:55:18PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote: >> ARMs long double >> type simply is d

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

Hi, On Mon, 1 May 2017, Daniel Glöckner wrote: On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 07:55:18PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote: ARMs long double type simply is double itself, and hence these functions are unused on ARM. Well, they would be if there wouldn't be strange code in arm-gen.c that makes use of xfdi co

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

Thanks, So is there a chance to remove this warning in case of ARM? -Original Message- From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Glöckner Sent: lundi 1 mai 2017 16:20 To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 07:55:18PM +0200, Michael Matz wrote: > ARMs long double > type simply is double itself, and hence these functions are unused > on ARM. Well, they would be if there wouldn't be strange code in > arm-gen.c that makes use of xfdi conversions when VFP is enabled. > That makes

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

x for this would entail ifdefing the XF routines in libtcc1.c, and not using them in the arm backend. Ciao, Michael. >   From:  Christian JULLIEN   Subject:  [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning Date:  Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:29:31 +0200 (CEST)   Trying to build mob on RPI I now get thi

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

No one looking at it? What is the behavior of this test when lower is unitialized? From: Christian JULLIEN Subject: [Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 09:29:31 +0200 (CEST) Trying to build mob on RPI I now get this new warning gcc -c ./lib/libtcc1.c -o

[Tinycc-devel] Annoying new warning

Trying to build mob on RPI I now get this new warning gcc -c ./lib/libtcc1.c -o libtcc1.o -DTCC_TARGET_ARM -Wall -g -O2 -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wno-pointer-sign -Wno-sign-compare -Wno-unused-result -fno-strict-aliasing -I.  -fPIC ./lib/libtcc1.c: In function __fixunsxfdi: ./lib/libtcc1.c:58