On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 7:22 AM, Christian Jullien <eli...@orange.fr> wrote: > It's nice to see new features coming on tcc, but it's also nice if they work > everywhere > _Generic author(s) can you please take time to fix failing test? > > Test: 94_generic... > --- ../../tests/tests2/94_generic.expect 2017-07-10 > 23:00:46.045513740 +0200 > +++ 94_generic.output 2017-07-14 07:12:25.965274077 +0200 > @@ -1,9 +1 @@ > -20 > -20 > -123 > -2 > -5 > -1 > -2 > -3 > -1 > +94_generic.c:44: error: type march twice > > IMHO, your test depends on how different types are implemented in native > machine. So it's more a test issue than an implementation issue. > May be? Using 'portable' types like uint32_t may solve some issues. You may > also solve const/non const issue signed/unsigned char by forcing an exact > type OR by giving the same value whether string is const or not. > > In any cases, 94_generic should produce NO error on platform tcc supports. > I'll be on vacation next two weeks and have limited time to investigate > myself but I'll be glad to test changes on Windows 32/64 and RPi >
Hello, Sorry if I take time to answer, So actually it's not a test issue, because gcc can do difference between a 'char *' a 'signed char *', and a 'unsigned char *', gcc doesn't consider int and a typedef of an int as the same type, and most important it will find the good match to a long. grischka seems to have fix char * problem, I've just push a fix for the long on my github, but it does refactor how VT_LONG is handle so I’m not very confident on pushing it now on mob without a review (this is why it take me time to answer). I've also fix all type. for the typedef, I guess it might work, but I didn't check further yet. _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
