[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Tinycc-devel] patches for discussion

From: David Mertens
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] patches for discussion
Date: Fri, 13 May 2016 21:55:58 -0400

Here is my take on this:

__LLP64__ macro -> very short patch. I don't think there's any problem defining this. But then, to quote wikipedia's article on 64-bit_computing, "C code should prefer (u)intptr_t instead of long when casting pointers into integer objects." I would argue this should be added to mob.

short_call -> small patch, looks like it solves a good and important problem with return-value handling. I strongly believe this should be added to mob.

whole-archive -> this is not a small patch, and it adds functionality which I believe is not crucial to the purpose of tcc. In the interest of keeping tcc's codebase small, I would lean toward not adding it.

That said, I am certainly not a gate keeper. I would wait to hear from others before doing anything.


On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 10:41 AM, Sergey Korshunoff <address@hidden> wrote:
I have the following patches in github repo (requests in tinycc bugzilla):

+ memory model macros __{L,}LP64__

+ short_call_convention

+ --whole-archive support

PS: there is request (Bugzilla) to implement
bug #37244: tinycc: lacks -nostartfiles -nodefaultlibs support, needed by Wine

Tinycc-devel mailing list

 "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
  Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
  by definition, not smart enough to debug it." -- Brian Kernighan

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]