Re: [Tinycc-devel] Add gcc cleanup attribute support

[Christian Jullien]

Hi,

Windows x64, Linux Intel 32/64 is already nice, esp. if a test exists. I'll
make other tests when pushed on mob.

C.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:address@hidden
On Behalf Of uso ewin
Sent: lundi 21 janvier 2019 11:16
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Add gcc cleanup attribute support

On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 9:19 AM Christian Jullien <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> Thank you for your patch. I adopt the same process: propose a patch then,
if
> nobody protest after a reasonable period of time, I push it on mod.
> Btw, have you a compressible set of tests for added feature?
> My **very modest** role I affect to myself in this project is to test mob
on
> the different platforms I have access to:
> - Windows 32/64
> - Linux Intel 32/64
> - Linux ARM 32/64
>
> I entirely rely on standard tests (+ running my own OpenLisp project which
> is an ISLISP Lisp compiler, this one includes non-regression performance
> benchmarks on generated code).
>
> Christian

I've add a tests in TCC (101_cleanup), but I've tests only on a
x86_64 linux,
I will test on windows 64, linux 32 intel  and try to create an ARM
linux VM with qemu
before pushing.

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tinycc-devel
[mailto:address@hidden
> On Behalf Of uso ewin
> Sent: samedi 19 janvier 2019 14:59
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Add gcc cleanup attribute support
>
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 1:20 PM uso ewin <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 8:10 PM uso ewin <address@hidden>
wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 8:42 PM uso ewin <address@hidden>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi
> > > > I've fix my problem,
> > > > cleanup should now work correctly on my github(I've push -f)
> > > >
> > > > I will now work on a new branch to remove the dual parsing.
> > > >
> > > > Matthias.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 7:35 PM uso ewin <address@hidden>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 10:27 AM uso ewin <address@hidden>
> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 6:51 PM Michael Matz
<address@hidden>
> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, 3 Jan 2019, uso ewin wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> * your way of dealing with the "goto forward" problem is to
> read and
> > > > > > > >>    remember all tokens after the goto until you find the
> label (and if so
> > > > > > > >>    do the cleanups), rereading all these tokens afterwards.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >>    This feels ugly and against the one-pass nature (and is
> quadratic if you
> > > > > > > >>    have very many gotos); several alternatives come to
mind,
> though I
> > > > > > > >>    haven't tried any of them to see if they result in less
> ugly code: e.g.
> > > > > > > >>    you could remember all potentially scope-exiting gotos
and
> check them at
> > > > > > > >>    scope exit (redirecting them to the cleanup and then
> further to the real
> > > > > > > >>    destination).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Well, the problem with checking this at scope exit or at the
> label declaration
> > > > > > > > is that as TCC do single pass generation, I can't go back
and
> > > > > > > > regenerate the goto.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not the goto, but you can adjust where the goto goes to.
> > > > > > Ok, I did not think about the possibility to do that,
> > > > > > but now you say that, I will definitively test this
> implementation.
> > > > > > Thanks a lot for the idea.
> > > > > > > You wouldn't
> > > > > > > link these gotos in the label->jnext members, but in some
> on-the-side
> > > > > > > structure (also remembering the ultimate label they would have
> to go to,
> > > > > > > you could probably use the existing dynarray_* code).
> > > > > > > When you reach a label definition you remove all pending gotos
> for that
> > > > > > > label (they don't skip over the scope exit).  When you reach a
> scope exit
> > > > > > > all pending gotos must first go to the cleanup snippet and
then
> to the
> > > > > > > ultimate label.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A way to solve this would be either to create a switch case
> after each label
> > > > > > > > that might need cleanup, or a dummy function for each goto
in
> need.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That latter is what you're essentially having right now: you
> check if the
> > > > > > > current goto in question leaves the scope, and if so emit all
> the cleanup
> > > > > > > code first and then the goto.  I.e. for multiple gotos you
> repeat the
> > > > > > > cleanup code.  That seems a sensible approach (the switch
> approach might
> > > > > > > lead to smaller code, but this shouldn't matter much here and
is
> more
> > > > > > > complicated).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Either way, the code needed to handle that would be a lot
more
> complex
> > > > > > > > that current implementation which is ~30line for handling
the
> forward goto case
> > > > > > > > and that is call only in scope that contain cleanup
variable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Remembering gotos would also only be done when there are
pending
> cleanups.
> > > > > > > It might be that you're right that it would take even more
code.
> But I'm
> > > > > > > not so sure.  The remembering and reiteration over tokens
really
> gripes at
> > > > > > > me.  E.g. think about this code:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >     { int a CLEANUP(foo);
> > > > > > >       ...  goto later1; ...
> > > > > > >       ...  goto later2; ...
> > > > > > >       large chunk of code
> > > > > > >     }
> > > > > > >     later1:
> > > > > > >     ...
> > > > > > >     later2:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For both gotos you iterate over the large chunk of code
shifting
> tokens
> > > > > > > back and forth between the token strings and the parser.  As I
> said, it's
> > > > > > > a cute trick to get what you need, but there has to be a
better
> way.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > We could also declare that forward jumps within scopes needing
> cleanups is
> > > > > > > simply not supported in TCC (with an appropriate error
message).
> I would
> > > > > > > prefer even that crippling of the support compared to the
token
> sifting.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If I use Sym but keep the dual parsing that would happen
only
> > > > > > > > when we have a goto forward and a scope containing cleanup,
> > > > > > > > would the balance switch to the advantage side ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A bit, but the dual parsing makes me really unhappy :-)  Do
you
> have
> > > > > > > cycles for trying an alternative approach to at least compare
> both?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ciao,
> > > > > > > Michael.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Tinycc-devel mailing list
> > > > > > > address@hidden
> > > > > > > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Well, I will at first remove the Token usage for cleanup call,
> because
> > > > > > it's buggy and ugly.
> > > > > > Then I will try to use label pointer for cleanup.
> > > > > > As it should use a lot of tcc code that are still obscure to me,
I
> > > > > > might take time to do so.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Matthias.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I've got some improvement on removing token usage,
> > > > > and generate call directly:
> > > > > It mostly work, except when I try to call a function
> > > > > with a float(or double) pointer as parameter,
> > > > > When a function with a float is call,
> > > > > the function receive NULL, instead of the float pointer.
> > > > > Here is the code I use to generate the call
> > > > > https://github.com/cosmo-ray/tcc/blob/cleanup/tccgen.c#L4755
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you help me with that ?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Matthias
> > >
> > > new version that don't use dual parsing:
> > > https://github.com/cosmo-ray/tcc/tree/cleanup2
> > >
> > > any thoughts on this ?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Matthias
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > As no one answer, can I push this on mod
> > (the version without dual parsing) ?
> >
> >
> > Matthias
>
> Hello again,
>
> I saw I had some bug in my last branch,
> https://github.com/cosmo-ray/tcc/tree/cleanup2
> so I've push -f fixes on it
>
> I'm going to wait until Wednesday to see if someone is
> against my patch, if I receive no complaint I will push on mob
>
> Thanks,
> Matthias
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tinycc-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tinycc-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel

_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel