On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 08:41:13AM +0100, Reimar Döffinger wrote: > My reason for implementing it is compatibility. > Quite a few projects will default to thin archives, and if you configure them > for CC=tcc they will fail to compile because of it. > They test for ar support of thin archives, but I don't think any of them > test if the compiler supports it...
This looks to me like bugs in the corresponding projects?.. (we shouldn't put code into tcc to work around someone else's *bugs*) > Now setting AR="tcc -ar" generally works, but it's an extra hurdle for > trying to get a project to compile. Setting this kind of variables is a well established way of dealing with different toolchains. I would see this as reasonable. > Though maybe just detecting thin archives (instead of just saying that > the format is not recognized) and printing instructions may work well enough > as an alternative. This can be a practical compromise. Still, as far as personal opinions matter, I would prefer this to be put into the documentation rather than into the code. > > Would it be too much to ask for making this addition a compile-time choice? > > Since the reason for it is compatibility, not a new feature per se, > I would not like that. > For compatibility features not having it at all (and force > people to deal with it) might be better than having it conditional. I agree. Having the extra code and the extra choice to make (whether to use that part of code) is a practical burden and harmful extra complexity. I hope someone else on the list will raise their opinion about how much trouble thin archives present for tcc and what level of support/detection is worth while. > > if (0 == memcmp(h, ARMAG, 8)) > > return AFF_BINTYPE_AR; > > + if (0 == memcmp(h, "!<thin>\n", 8)) > > + return AFF_BINTYPE_AR; > > "!<thin>\n" looks like a candidate for a symbolic name not unlike ARMAG ?) > > It seemed overkill at first since it was only used in one place, > but now that it's used in 2 places, yes. I thought about consistency, when two operations with identical semantics are being done, it is easier to follow the logic when they look like each other as well. Kind regards, /tccm _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
