When doing on x86_64:
cd tests; make btest
I get a core dump:
#0 tcc_add_bcheck (s1=0x46a2a0) at x86_64-gen.c:665
#1 0x004227aa in tcc_add_runtime (s1=0x46a2a0) at tccelf.c:1323
#2 0x00424d6e in elf_output_file (s1=0x46a2a0,
filename=0x46b540 "a") at tccelf.c:2260
#3 0x0
intf("ll: %lx %x\n", ll, guard); // truncated
printf("ll: %llx %x\n", ll, guard); // OK
}
-Original Message-
From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of Edmund Grimley Evans
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 23:15
To:
> #define pv(m) printf(sizeof (s->m + 0) == 8 ? "%llx\n" : "%x\n", s->m)
What's wrong with printf("%llx\n", (unsigned long long)s->m)?
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Herman ten Brugge via Tinycc-devel wrote:
I just committed a large patch that fix a lot of bounds checking problems.
Hmm, is this supposed to find something, too? For example:
{
char a[10], b[10], c;
b[15] = 16;
(&c)[20] = 21;
free(a);
Seems to pass without any complain.
Btw
inycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of Herman ten Brugge via Tinycc-devel
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 09:09
To: jull...@eligis.com; tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Herman ten Brugge
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] bounds checking
Oops. You reported 2 problem
https://sourceforge.net/projects/wintcc/ so feel free to modify wine directory
I created for you. I can of course do it if you like.
C.
-Original Message-
From: Herman ten Brugge [mailto:hermantenbru...@home.nl]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 08:48
To: jull...@eligis.com; tinycc-devel@n
inycc/lib'
make: *** [Makefile:246: libtcc1.a] Error 2
-Original Message-
From: Tinycc-devel
[mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On Behalf
Of Herman ten Brugge via Tinycc-devel
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 08:26
To: Herman ten Brugge via Tinycc-devel
Cc:
rman ten Brugge [mailto:hermantenbru...@home.nl]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 08:48
To: jull...@eligis.com; tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] bounds checking
I hope I fixed this now.
I attached the wine Makefile I used. Could you update sourceforge?
Regards,
Herma
[mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of Herman ten Brugge via Tinycc-devel
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 08:26
To: Herman ten Brugge via Tinycc-devel
Cc: Herman ten Brugge
Subject: [Tinycc-devel] bounds checking
I just committed a large patch that fix a lot of b
g directory '/home/jullien/tinycc/lib'
make: *** [Makefile:246: libtcc1.a] Error 2
-Original Message-
From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of Herman ten Brugge via Tinycc-devel
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 08:26
To: Herman ten Br
I just committed a large patch that fix a lot of bounds checking problems.
I tested the bounds checking code now works on x86_64 and i386 on linux
and windows.
The test/tests2 directory can now be tested with -b enabled.
There are a lot of changes (not complete):
- split up bcheck.c from libtc
Hello,
On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, Herman ten Brugge wrote:
> I think I have a working patch now. See attachment.
> The code runs on i386 and x86_64 on linux for large projects I have.
>
> I found some bugs when updating the i386 code.
> The bugs are in the testcases in the patch.
> The test/boundtest.c
Hi.
Wondering why you think a mailing-list is a review/tests review notepad.
Not under-rating your work, it's very fine, but why not a private chat ?
Or only when tested a simple comment on a fork ?
Btw, I'd be glad to test it on x86 32 bits linux 5.0.
Regards, ian
Le 02/12/2019 à 22:46, Herman
I think I have a working patch now. See attachment.
The code runs on i386 and x86_64 on linux for large projects I have.
I found some bugs when updating the i386 code.
The bugs are in the testcases in the patch.
The test/boundtest.c code works for both targets.
See below for the main changes.
I
Little updated patch. Still needs more work.
Regards,
Herman
On 2019-12-02 18:24, Herman ten Brugge wrote:
Hello,
I did some debugging with bouds-checking and came up with attached patch.
I seriously doubt any one did use bounds checking in a large project
before.
Currently I can use t
Hello,
I did some debugging with bouds-checking and came up with attached patch.
I seriously doubt any one did use bounds checking in a large project before.
Currently I can use this now in a large multi threaded project. It still
needs some more testing so do not apply the patch yet.
I disab
Tinycc-devel
Sent: Thursday, November 28, 2019 18:16
To: Michael Matz
Cc: Herman ten Brugge; Herman ten Brugge via Tinycc-devel
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] bounds checking with tcc
On 2019-11-28 17:41, Michael Matz wrote:
Hello again,
but to maybe be a bit more constructive:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019,
Hello,
On 2019-11-28 17:08, Michael Matz wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019, Herman ten Brugge wrote:
Exactly. So we need to make a decision if we want that extension of the
bounds-checking feature in TCC under these constraints. In my opinion we
don't want to, but I won't stand in the way o
Hello again,
but to maybe be a bit more constructive:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019, Michael Matz wrote:
> > I fixed this with some push/pop trickery.
I see, yeah, expanding calls during calls is broken as gfunc_call in the
generators doesn't generally leave a trace in vtop[] which registers are
curren
; Herman ten Brugge via Tinycc-devel
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] bounds checking with tcc
On 2019-11-28 17:41, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hello again,
>
> but to maybe be a bit more constructive:
>
> On Thu, 28 Nov 2019, Michael Matz wrote:
>
>>> I fixed this with some push/
On 2019-11-28 17:41, Michael Matz wrote:
Hello again,
but to maybe be a bit more constructive:
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019, Michael Matz wrote:
I fixed this with some push/pop trickery.
I see, yeah, expanding calls during calls is broken as gfunc_call in the
generators doesn't generally leave a trac
Hello,
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019, Herman ten Brugge wrote:
> > Exactly. So we need to make a decision if we want that extension of the
> > bounds-checking feature in TCC under these constraints. In my opinion we
> > don't want to, but I won't stand in the way of extending it to locals (but
> > then t
On 2019-11-27 18:17, Michael Matz wrote:
Hello Herman,
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, Herman ten Brugge wrote:
As TCC is single pass, at the declaration of locali you can't know that
eventually the address is taken. So, as in your patch, you have to always
generate code assuming that the address will b
Hello Herman,
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019, Herman ten Brugge wrote:
> > As TCC is single pass, at the declaration of locali you can't know that
> > eventually the address is taken. So, as in your patch, you have to always
> > generate code assuming that the address will be eventually taken, i.e. for
> >
On 2019-10-31 15:11, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 29 Oct 2019, Herman ten Brugge via Tinycc-devel wrote:
I tried bound checking with tcc and found some problems. (See attached
patch).
The bound checking code is fairly incomplete, and some of it can't really
be fixed without more aggressive
Hi,
On Tue, 29 Oct 2019, Herman ten Brugge via Tinycc-devel wrote:
> I tried bound checking with tcc and found some problems. (See attached
> patch).
The bound checking code is fairly incomplete, and some of it can't really
be fixed without more aggressive changes in TCC, my private opinion is
I tried bound checking with tcc and found some problems. (See attached
patch).
First the bounds checking code is included in shared objects and in the
application.
This means that for example malloc and friends are redirected twice.
I fixed this in tccelf.c
Second problem is that only arrays
Hmm, interesting. Wouldn't raise(SIGSEGV) be a better action to take?
On Saturday 13 June 2009 12:20:19 grischka wrote:
> Arnold Meijster wrote:
> > I will be teaching a course in C programming at the university
> > and was looking for a C compiler/interpreter that does
> > bound checking (for fir
Arnold Meijster wrote:
I will be teaching a course in C programming at the university
and was looking for a C compiler/interpreter that does
bound checking (for first year's students that seems to be a good idea).
After some googling, I found tcc. It seems to be perfect for what I
want, ...
D
Arnold Meijster writes:
> Hi,
>
> I will be teaching a course in C programming at the university
> and was looking for a C compiler/interpreter that does
> bound checking (for first year's students that seems to be a good idea).
you might wish to try valgrind
jens
___
I have a feeling bounds checking was broken a while ago, but don't quote me on
that.
On Friday 12 June 2009 15:06:26 Arnold Meijster wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just subscribed to the devel-list so don't flame me if
> I write this to the wrong list, please.
>
> I will be teaching a course in C programming
Hi,
I just subscribed to the devel-list so don't flame me if
I write this to the wrong list, please.
I will be teaching a course in C programming at the university
and was looking for a C compiler/interpreter that does
bound checking (for first year's students that seems to be a good idea).
Af
Dear all,
Is there a chance that the bounds checking of Tiny CC is not implemented in the
Windows version?
I tried to compile a few sample programs, but the compiler apparently doesn't
recognize the "-b" option...
Any hints? Thanks in advance.
Cheers,
Elmar, Tiny CC newbie
--
GMX FreeM
[ Apparently I left this message unsent when I suspended my laptop
yesterday... Might now be stale, dunno. ]
On Thursday 10 May 2007 2:28 pm, kf wrote:
> > Worked fine for me when I just tried it.
>
> So, no tcc's fault then?
Not solely our fault, but we may be partially responsible. All I kn
On Friday 11 May 2007 6:25 am, kf wrote:
> I forgot to mention that this test case runs ok sometimes, about once
> in ten runs...
Yeah, that would be an important thing to mention.
> tcc was compiled with gcc 4.1.1, but the problem remains if I compile
> it with itself.
Good data point, thanks.
I forgot to mention that this test case runs ok sometimes, about once
in ten runs...
I also tested this in another machine, also running FC5, with same results...
tcc was compiled with gcc 4.1.1, but the problem remains if I compile
it with itself.
K
On 5/10/07, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
On 5/10/07, Rob Landley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thursday 10 May 2007 7:36 am, kf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm having a strange problem with free() with bounds checking turned
> on. Below is a small program that reproduces the problem. The program
> runs just fine if I don't use -b flag. My system i
On Thursday 10 May 2007 7:36 am, kf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm having a strange problem with free() with bounds checking turned
> on. Below is a small program that reproduces the problem. The program
> runs just fine if I don't use -b flag. My system is FC5. I'm using Rob
> Landley's tinycc-rl-1.0.0.tar
Hi,
I'm having a strange problem with free() with bounds checking turned
on. Below is a small program that reproduces the problem. The program
runs just fine if I don't use -b flag. My system is FC5. I'm using Rob
Landley's tinycc-rl-1.0.0.tar.bz2 release.
Here is the transcript:
$ cat t.c
#inc
39 matches
Mail list logo
