Hi,
On Behalf Of jiang
index 22a8278..2fd4614 100644
@@ -1655,6 +1655,15 @@ void bitfield_test(void)
else
printf(st1.f2 != -1\n);
+/* XXX: gcc bug
My logic is:
If it is a bug, why we should follow a wrong way?
Aidan Dodds wrote: It looks like you are trying to
jiang wrote:
/* bitfield store handling */
+SValue tmp;
+tmp = vtop[0];
[...]
+vtop--;
+vpushv(tmp);
This is still not a solution. See
#include stdio.h
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
struct {
unsigned a:9, b:5, c:7;
This is my modified.
I tried to modify the Makefile, but my limited level, think of ways to
modify later.
--- tccgen.c
---
index 7906ccf..4f2a02c 100644
@@ -2562,6 +2562,8 @@ ST_FUNC void vstore(void)
/* leave source on
On 20/06/2014 06:58, jiang wrote:
printf(%d %d %d %d %d\n,
+ st1.f2, st1.f3, st1.f4, st1.f5);
Am i being stupid, or do you specify 5 format specifiers with only 4
arguments?!
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
I see now that must be intentional, but that's also very dangerous.
It looks like you are trying to reproduce a gcc bug, why not make that
optional? Perhaps proposing a compatibility mode if it would be a useful
thing to have.
Even if its sensible, you should really control what garbage data
