[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Call for testing
From: |
grischka |
Subject: |
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Call for testing |
Date: |
Sun, 06 Jan 2013 17:03:28 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812) |
/usr/bin/gcc-4.0.4 -o tcc.o -c tcc.c -DTCC_TARGET_I386 -I.
-I/home/didier/documents/tech/dev/tcc/tinycc -Wall -g -O2
I think some people might not feel comfortable to see their absolute
paths exposed. Also it makes command lines longer/uglier than necessary
and is redundant here anyway (same as -I.).
-fno-strict-aliasing -Wno-pointer-sign -Wno-sign-compare
-Wno-unused-result -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 -march=i386
-falign-functions=0 -m32
Do we need both -march=i386 and -m32?
Also, what about removing
-mpreferred-stack-boundary=2
and
-falign-functions=0
?
cc1: error: unrecognized command line option "-Wno-unused-result"
make: *** [tcc.o] Error 1
Maybe we could test supported switches by running the compiler in
configure.
Also what about using -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=0 when -Wno-unused-result
is not supported?
Also, someone please test the functionality of the install. (I suspect
libtcc.h might be missing).
Compilation on Windows with MSC fails in tccgen.c:vswap():
../tccgen.c(476) : error C2143: syntax error : missing ';' before 'type'
[more ...]
After moving declarations before statements, it fails like this:
../tccgen.c(490) : warning C4308: negative integral constant converted to
unsigned type
../tccgen.c(490) : warning C4307: '*' : integral constant overflow
../tccgen.c(490) : warning C4307: '+' : integral constant overflow
../tccgen.c:481: error: incompatible types for redefinition of
'__static_assert_t'
[more ...]
I'd suggest to move that optimization into its own function
void memswap(void *p1, void *p2, size_t n);
or otherwise to revert it.
Other candidates for reversion (OTOH):
-
http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git/commitdiff/fc574f14984d11f1ead50560d1bdc5ae0eaf6d8d
The headers from include are copied to win32/include during install
-
http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git/commitdiff/943574aba54713ca4a17fe33aadde5abee233b53
Obviously (if you look at the code) this was not a bug but intended behavior.
-
http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git/commitdiff/3d409b08893873b917ccb8c34398bc41a4e84d7c
The patch doesn't fix the real problem which is not duplicate -I's by the user
but the very obviously crappy handling of #include_next itself. Of course
the patch fixes something, but if we keep it chances are that we'll never see
a correct solution.
--- grischka
- [Tinycc-devel] Call for testing, Thomas Preud'homme, 2013/01/05
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] Call for testing, Aharon Robbins, 2013/01/06
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] Call for testing, Didier Barvaux, 2013/01/06
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] Call for testing, Roy Tam, 2013/01/06
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] Call for testing, Roy Tam, 2013/01/06
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] Call for testing, grischka, 2013/01/07
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] Call for testing, Roy Tam, 2013/01/10
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] Call for testing, Thomas Preud'homme, 2013/01/13
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] Call for testing, Thomas Preud'homme, 2013/01/14
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] Call for testing, Akim Demaille, 2013/01/14