Re: [Tinycc-devel] Status for 0.9.27

[grischka]

Christian Jullien wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>  
>
> tcc status has never been clear to me. I mean, we don't really what has been
> tested or not.

Honorable attempt, however I think peoples' mileage may vary as to
what "works" means.  Some may not consider tcc as a working compiler
at all, and maybe they're right.

I'd say: It does something, on linux and windows, best on i386 but also
on x86_64.  From how the sources look also some arm variants seem to
be supported, as well as aarch64 since lately.  FreeBSD has unresolved
linker problems, as well as -static on all platforms since well, forever.
For Apple it lacks a MACHO backend.  So that is pretty much the same
as you already noticed.

At least we can say that it does more than last release.

--- grischka


> For example, who knows the status of FreeBSD on Aarch64?
>
> It is generally admitted that tcc 'globally' works well on Linux and
> Windows. If we go further and ask the same question with shared V.S. static
> it is less clear. Is Aarch64 really supported? How has it been tested.
>
> Can we really say that tcc works on Apple as it cannot produce executables?
>
>  
>
> On the other hand we know that it does not fully work on *BSD (x86/x86_64)
>
>  
>
> IMHO we should have better status based on tests made.
>
>  
>
> I'm ready to run standard regression tests and validate static executables
> with my Lisp non-regression test on:
>
> -          arm Linux
>
> -          aarch64 Linux
>
> -          x86 Windows
>
> -          x86_64 Windows
>
>  
>
> We should have somewhere a spreadsheet with all features tcc supports we
> will fill for different OS/processor
>
>  
>
> Wdyt?
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tinycc-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel