I did macOS test with the help of vagrant.
You can download any OS from their platform:
https://app.vagrantup.com/boxes/search
and its very convenient as it automates the generation and integration
(ssh connection, shared folders, ...).
And as it is a VM it is 100% macOS (no emulation with its quirks)
robert
Am 21.04.2020 um 16:25 schrieb Federico Bianchi:
How about Darling?
https://darlinghq.org/
Regards
-- Federico Bianchi
polo 4 @ SID UniPI.IT
On Tue, 21 Apr 2020, Christian Jullien wrote:
Are there macOS images? Because if so, I could probably look at
adding Mach-O support on a rainy day. Without access to MacOS
that's going to be difficult :)
Wouah! I'd love to have it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tinycc-devel
[mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On Behalf
Of Michael Matz
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 16:05
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] github
Hello,
On Sun, 19 Apr 2020, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
TinyCC is great because it supports so much configurations (3 OSes,
even
more CPU archs).
But the downside is, that nobody can ensure that his change wont break
any of these configurations.
(Probably most of us are testing only on their own PC, which is one OS
with probably x86-64).
How about a CI?
I am not a core dev, but I set up a CI for tcc:
https://gitlab.com/giomasce/tinycc/pipelines
Unfortunately it is currently broken. I believe the CI is broken, not
tcc, because it wasn't broken before my last round of CI script
maintenance. I'll try to fix them as soon as I have some time, but if
someone wants to check them out in the meantime I won't complain.
Yeah, I've seen the breakages, but had no bright idea, see below.
Currently armhf fails with "Illegal instruction", and I don't know if
the problem is QEMU emulation or tcc itself, because the same commit did
work before I did my last round of changes.
Yeah, I figured something must be up with the emulator. No way TCC
is generating genuinely illegal instructions :) It would be helpful
if the emulator would give some hint of the instruction bytes it
thinks are illegal :) (One guess of mine was that the emulator is
run in a mode where e.g. Neon instructions are invalid?)
riscv64 has a failing test, and that could be a genuine tcc bug. If
so, it is probably introduced by recent "win32: long double as
distinct C-type" commit. Broken test is
"70_floating_point_literals", see the log[1].
Yeah, but I don't think there's a TCC problem. The failure in
riscv64 is random (i.e. changes place from test to test, when the
pipelines are re-triggered by unrelated changes, just browse the
different fails). I've looked at one of the testcases claimed to be
failing and it's definitely correct code.
[1] https://gitlab.com/giomasce/tinycc/-/jobs/507946108
As soon as I have some time, I'd like to fix these problems and
eventually support Windows and macOS too. I believe this
architecture with QEMU running in GitLab CI can work, but suitable
Windows and macOS images have to be prepared and compilation scripts
adapted. QEMU TCG emulation is slowish, but if we prepare images
with a snapshot so that the VM doesn't have to go through the whole
boot sequence it might be reasonable.
Are there macOS images? Because if so, I could probably look at
adding Mach-O support on a rainy day. Without access to MacOS that's
going to be difficult :)
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
_______________________________________________
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
