|Subject:||Re: [Tinycc-devel] issues/questions with stddef.h which comes with tcc|
|Date:||Fri, 1 Jan 2021 09:08:57 -0800|
I had this experience the other day.Someone on Github is building a (not yet finished) jit compiler that has a C compiler as a test case. It will be a competitor to TCC one day, I guess.Anyway, it's being developed on Linux but some early parts were tested on Windows.Not the C compiler though, it doesn't come with ANY include files.I tried MingW's include files - nothing but errors.I tried TCC's include files - nothing but errors.So that's an example of this sort of thing going wrong.On Fri, Jan 1, 2021 at 7:45 AM Christian Jullien <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:_______________________________________________
First, happy new year all.
Porting tcc on *BSD systems raised issues/questions with stddef.h from tcc distrib.
First, it contains a mix of definitions coming from both stddef.h and stdint.h IMHO it should only contain what stddef.h is supposed to contain.
i.e. From C11:
B.18 Common definitions <stddef.h>
_ _STDC_WANT_LIB_EXT1_ _
Howerver it also contain many [u]intN_t type definitions which duplicate what is found on stdint.h
The issues come when a valid program frist includes <stdint.h> then <stddef.h>
It first finds [u]intN_t definitions in system [/usr/include/]stdint.h file which are duplicated/redefined in [tcc/include/]stddef.h from tcc.
When definitions differ, tcc stops as some with *BSD systems and [u]int64_t definitions.
Why tcc needs its own stddef.h instead of system one?
Why tcc does not need stdint.h?
I suppose it is because tcc does not support all gcc syntaxes found on stddef.h (is it still true?) in that case, it would be better to split definitions in stddef.h and stdint.h following the ISO C11 standard.
Clarifications/fixes are welcome.
Tinycc-devel mailing list
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|