Ok, Michael, Grischka,
Forget one moment what has been said so far and concentrate on my concern
with narrowed info.
Facts:
* __fixunsxfdi in lib/libtcc.c issues a warning on ARM because it uses a
struct that was supposed to be used by x86 but no #if insures this
* __fixxfdi is the only function (also in lib/libtcc.c) that calls
__fixunsxfdi
* __fixxfdi is used by tcctok.h protected by a #if defined TCC_TARGET_I386
and used by i386-gen.c (OK not ARM, no issues with it)
* __fixxfdi is used also by tcctok.h protected by
#if defined TCC_TARGET_ARM
# ifdef TCC_ARM_EABI
...
# else
DEF(TOK___modsi3, "__modsi3")
DEF(TOK___umodsi3, "__umodsi3")
DEF(TOK___divsi3, "__divsi3")
DEF(TOK___udivsi3, "__udivsi3")
DEF(TOK___floatdisf, "__floatdisf")
DEF(TOK___floatdidf, "__floatdidf")
# ifndef TCC_ARM_VFP
DEF(TOK___floatdixf, "__floatdixf")
DEF(TOK___fixunssfsi, "__fixunssfsi")
DEF(TOK___fixunsdfsi, "__fixunsdfsi")
DEF(TOK___fixunsxfsi, "__fixunsxfsi")
DEF(TOK___fixxfdi, "__fixxfdi") <= here!!!
# endif
* Finally, arm-gen.c uses TOK___fixxfdi with yet another #if condition =>
LDOUBLE_SIZE != 8
#if LDOUBLE_SIZE != 8
else if(r2 == VT_LDOUBLE)
func=TOK___fixxfdi;
else if(r2 == VT_DOUBLE)
#else
So there is at least one combination of compiler/pre-processor options on
ARM that may use __fixunsxfdi 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 Matz
Sent: samedi 6 mai 2017 21:28
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: 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 x86. So far so good.
> So I commented out using #if unsigned long long __fixunsxfdi (long
> double
> a1) and, by transitive closure
> long long __fixxfdi (long double a1)
> {
> long long ret; int s;
> ret = __fixunsxfdi((s = a1 >= 0) ? a1 : -a1);
> return s ? ret : -ret;
> }
Yes, that you did, and that's right. But that's not the only thing you did,
look at your patch again. Your second '#if !defined(TCC_TARGET_ARM)'
also surrounds and hence on arm comments out the implementations of
__fixunsdfdi, __fixdfdi (after rename/move), and that's wrong. Note: df,
not xf!
Ciao,
Michael.
_______________________________________________
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
