./configure --enable-cross
make
tcc -o i386-tcc tcc.c
tcc -o x86_64-tcc tcc.c
tcc -o i386-win-tcc tcc.c
In file included from tcc.c:22:
In file included from libtcc.c:39:
tccgen.c:2580: error: 'TOK_memmove' undeclared
include dirs are prepared as in gcc
- for each duplicate path keep just the first one
- remove each include_path that exists in sysinclude_paths
include_next streamlined by introducing inc_path_index
in the BufferedFile
gcc-3.4.6 don't give such error by default
example file1
char __version_303_xxxxxxxx;
void func1() {}
example file2
char __version_303_xxxxxxxx;
void func2() {}
int main() { return 0; }
This version looks rigth. Comparing to the original
algorithm:
1) Loop breaking. We remember a start point after wich
we can try next path. Do not search include stack after
this.
2) But compare next file patch with the start point.
Skip if it the same. Remove "./" before comparing.
PS: a problems with compaling a coreutils-8.24.51-8802e
remain. There are errors messages like:
src/chgrp
src/chown-core.c:42: multiple definition of `make_timespec'
src/chgrp.c:42: first defined here
A problem is in the lib/config.h
#define _GL_INLINE_ extern inline // gcc
#define _GL_INLINE_ inline // tcc
A long description from the lib/config.h
* suppress extern inline with HP-UX cc, as it appears to be broken
* suppress extern inline with Sun C in standards-conformance mode
* suppress extern inline on configurations that mistakenly use
'static inline' to implement functions or macros in standard
C headers like <ctype.h>.
GCC and Clang are excluded from this list. Why not tcc?
don't give an error and simply ingnore directive
if we detect a loop of the #include_next.
With this aproach coreutils-8.24.51-8802e
compiles, but with errors:
lib/libcoreutils.a: error: 'xnmalloc' defined twice
lib/libcoreutils.a: error: 'xnrealloc' defined twice
don't panic with
error: '.' expected
if there is only two '.' chars. Return tok='.' in such case.
An asm code to test:
jz do_move0 # .. then we have a normal low
# .. or else we have a high
The call to build_got can cause symtab_section->data to be reallocated
(build_got -> add_elf_sym -> put_elf_sym -> section_ptr_add ->
section_realloc -> tcc_realloc). This is not obvious on a cursory
inspection, but fortunately Valgrind spotted it immediately.
Are there other, similar bugs that Valgrind did not detect?
don't crash
a test program:
================
typedef struct X { int len; } X;
#define init(s,len) s.len = len;
int main(void) {
X myX;
init(myX,10);
return 0;
}
================
After a patch:
error: field name expected
a test program:
========
typedef struct X { int len; } X;
int main(void) {
X myX;
myX.10 = 10;
return 0;
}
========
Error message before a patch:
error: ';' expected (got "(null)")
After a patch:
error: field name expected
* Documentation is now in "docs".
* Source code is now in "src".
* Misc. fixes here and there so that everything still works.
I think I got everything in this commit, but I only tested this
on Linux (Make) and Windows (CMake), so I might've messed
something up on other platforms...
Jsut for testing. It works for me (don't break anything)
Small fixes for x86_64-gen.c in "tccpp: fix issues, add tests"
are dropped in flavor of this patch.
Pip Cet:
Okay, here's a first patch that fixes the problem (but I've found
another bug, yet unfixed, in the process), though it's not
particularly pretty code (I tried hard to keep the changes to the
minimum necessary). If we decide to actually get rid of VT_QLONG and
VT_QFLOAT (please, can we?), there are some further simplifications in
tccgen.c that might offset some of the cost of this patch.
The idea is that an integer is no longer enough to describe how an
argument is stored in registers. There are a number of possibilities
(none, integer register, two integer registers, float register, two
float registers, integer register plus float register, float register
plus integer register), and instead of enumerating them I've
introduced a RegArgs type that stores the offsets for each of our
registers (for the other architectures, it's simply an int specifying
the number of registers). If someone strongly prefers an enum, we
could do that instead, but I believe this is a place where keeping
things general is worth it, because this way it should be doable to
add SSE or AVX support.
There is one line in the patch that looks suspicious:
} else {
addr = (addr + align - 1) & -align;
param_addr = addr;
addr += size;
- sse_param_index += reg_count;
}
break;
However, this actually fixes one half of a bug we have when calling a
function with eight double arguments "interrupted" by a two-double
structure after the seventh double argument:
f(double,double,double,double,double,double,double,struct { double
x,y; },double);
In this case, the last argument should be passed in %xmm7. This patch
fixes the problem in gfunc_prolog, but not the corresponding problem
in gfunc_call, which I'll try tackling next.
Edmund Grimley Evans