Hi Michael, I've found two different issues when trying tcc on FreeBSD x86 and x86_64. - On x86 it does not find gcc C lib which may not be difficult to fix, in memory compilation seem to work. - On x86_64 it also have the gcc lib issue + it makes core dump when reading elf section.
I didn't investigate more than that as I know about nothing about ELF format. C. -----Original Message----- From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On Behalf Of Michael B. Smith Sent: jeudi 24 novembre 2016 00:58 To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Status for 0.9.27 So, this may a bit out of place.... For various reasons, I need to start using DragonFly BSD for a few projects in the new year. I'd be thankful if you (or any other users of this list) can point me to any details regarding the *BSD problems and/or the static problems? Thanks. Regards, Michael B. -----Original Message----- From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+michael=theessentialexchange....@nongnu.org] On Behalf Of grischka Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 12:19 PM To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Status for 0.9.27 Christian Jullien wrote: > Hi all, > > > > tcc status has never been clear to me. I mean, we don't really what > has been tested or not. Honorable attempt, however I think peoples' mileage may vary as to what "works" means. Some may not consider tcc as a working compiler at all, and maybe they're right. I'd say: It does something, on linux and windows, best on i386 but also on x86_64. From how the sources look also some arm variants seem to be supported, as well as aarch64 since lately. FreeBSD has unresolved linker problems, as well as -static on all platforms since well, forever. For Apple it lacks a MACHO backend. So that is pretty much the same as you already noticed. At least we can say that it does more than last release. --- grischka > For example, who knows the status of FreeBSD on Aarch64? > > It is generally admitted that tcc 'globally' works well on Linux and > Windows. If we go further and ask the same question with shared V.S. > static it is less clear. Is Aarch64 really supported? How has it been tested. > > Can we really say that tcc works on Apple as it cannot produce executables? > > > > On the other hand we know that it does not fully work on *BSD > (x86/x86_64) > > > > IMHO we should have better status based on tests made. > > > > I'm ready to run standard regression tests and validate static > executables with my Lisp non-regression test on: > > - arm Linux > > - aarch64 Linux > > - x86 Windows > > - x86_64 Windows > > > > We should have somewhere a spreadsheet with all features tcc supports > we will fill for different OS/processor > > > > Wdyt? > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > _______________________________________________ > Tinycc-devel mailing list > Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
