test target in Makefile does not depend on tcc.
i'm not sure why, but i can think of at least one
good reason. in my local tree I have it modified
to do so, but somehow inadvertently reverted that
so when i did "make test" before committing, it
didn't actually test my changes. sorry.
previously, tcc would accept a prototype of a function returning
an array, but not giving those functions bodies nor calling them.
it seems that gcc has never supported them, so we should probably
just error out... but it's possible that someone already using
tcc includes some header that contains an unused prototype for
one, so let's continue to support that.
Add support for asm labels for variables, that is the ability to rename
a variable at assembly level with __asm__ ("newname") appended in
its declaration.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.4.4/gcc/Asm-Labels.html for more
details.
- Fix function assembly label mechanism introduced in commit
9b09fc376e to only accept alternative
name for function declaration.
- merge the code with the one introduced in commit
264a103610.
- Don't memorize token for asm label but directly the asm label.
Error out on static function without file scope and give an explaination
to the user
This is a rewrite of e9406c09a3 but
considering problems raised about static local function pointers in
632ee5a540.
* Disable C99 VLA detection when alloca is unavailable and protect the
new reference to TOK_alloca in decl_initializer in order to compile
and run for architecture without working alloca.
Not all code of C99 VLA is commented as it would required many ifdef
stanza. Just the detection is commented so that VT_VLA is never set
any type and the C99 VLA code is compiled but never called. However
vpush_global_sym(&func_old_type, TOK_alloca) in decl_initializer needs
to be protected by an ifdef stanza as well because it uses TOK_alloca.
* include alloca and C99 VLA tests according to availability of
TOK_alloca instead of relying on the current architecture
Implement C99 Variable Length Arrays in tinycc:
- Support VLA with multiple level (nested vla)
- Update documentation with regards to VT_VLA
- Add a testsuite in tcctest.c
- add __builtin_va_arg_types to check how arguments were passed
- move most code of stdarg into libtcc1.c
- remove __builtin_malloc and __builtin_free
- add a test case based on the bug report
(http://www.mail-archive.com/tinycc-devel@nongnu.org/msg03036.html)
Add support for asm labels for functions, that is the ability to rename
a function at assembly level with __asm__ ("newname") appended in
function declaration.
This reverts commit 433ecdfc9d.
The patch breaks e.g. with
for ((i = 10); --i;);
In particular to check for a type decl. this is not sufficient:
if (tok < TOK_UIDENT) {
A future approach to c99 loop variables might instead use:
if (parse_btype(...)) {
plus refactor function decl() accordingly.
Unary expression can start with a parenthesis. Thus, the current test
to detect which sizeof form is being parsed is inaccurate. This patch
makes tcc able to handle things like sizeof (x)[1] where x is declared
as char x[5]; wich is a valid unary expression
Error out with an explicit message when trying to initialize a
character array with something that's not a literal (optionally
enclosed in braces) as per C99 6.7.8:14; thanks to Antti-Juhani
Kaijanaho <ajk@debian.org> who did all the work.
When storing structs with a memcpy call in vstore(),
so far a needless entry remaining on the vstack
sometimes resulted in an useless store generated by
save_regs() in gfunc_call() for the memcpy routine.
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 19:06:56 +0800
From: Soloist Deng <soloist.deng-gmail-com>
Subject: [Tinycc-devel] trying to fix the bug of unclean FPU st(0)
Hi all:
I am using tcc-0.9.25, and the FPU bug brought a big trouble to
me. I read the source and tried to fix it.
Below is my solution.
There are two places where program(`o(0xd9dd)') will generates `fstp
%st(1)': vpop() in tccgen.c:689 and save_reg() in tccgen.c:210.
We should first change both of them to `o(0xd8dd) // fstp %st(0)'.
But these changes are not enough. Let's check the following code.
void foo()
{
double var = 2.7;
var++;
}
Using the changed tcc will generate following machine code:
.text:08000000 public foo
.text:08000000 foo proc near
.text:08000000
.text:08000000 var_18 = qword ptr -18h
.text:08000000 var_10 = qword ptr -10h
.text:08000000 var_8 = qword ptr -8
.text:08000000
.text:08000000 push ebp
.text:08000001 mov ebp, esp
.text:08000003 sub esp, 18h
.text:08000009 nop
.text:0800000A fld L_0
.text:08000010 fst [ebp+var_8]
.text:08000013 fstp st(0)
.text:08000015 fld [ebp+var_8]
.text:08000018 fst [ebp+var_10]
.text:0800001B fstp st(0)
.text:0800001D fst [ebp+var_18]
.text:08000020 fstp st(0)
.text:08000022 fld L_1
.text:08000028 fadd [ebp+var_10]
.text:0800002B fst [ebp+var_8]
.text:0800002E fstp st(0)
.text:08000030 leave
.text:08000031 retn
.text:08000031 foo endp
.text:08000031
.text:08000031 _text ends
--------------------------------------------------
.data:08000040 ; Segment type: Pure data
.data:08000040 ; Segment permissions: Read/Write
.data:08000040 ; Segment alignment '32byte' can not be represented in assembly
.data:08000040 _data segment page public 'DATA' use32
.data:08000040 assume cs:_data
.data:08000040 ;org 8000040h
.data:08000040 L_0 dq 400599999999999Ah
.data:08000048 L_1 dq 3FF0000000000000h
.data:08000048 _data ends
Please notice the code snippet from 0800000A to 08000020
// double var = 2.7; load constant to st(0)
.text:0800000A fld L_0
// double var = 2.7; store st(0) to `var'
.text:08000010 fst [ebp+var_8]
// double var = 2.7; poping st(0) will empty the floating registers stack
.text:08000013 fstp st(0)
After that ,tcc will call `void inc(int post, int c)" in
tccgen.c:2150, and produce 08000015 to 0800001B through the calling
chain (inc ->gv_dup)
// load from `var' to st(0)
.text:08000015 fld [ebp+var_8]
// store st(0) to a temporary location
.text:08000018 fst [ebp+var_10]
// poping st(0) will empty the floating registers stack
.text:0800001B fstp st(0)
And the calling chain
(gen_op('+')->gen_opif('+')->gen_opf('+')->gv(rc=2)->get_reg(rc=2)->save_reg(r=3))
will produce 0800001D to 08000020 .
// store st(0) to a temporary location, but floating stack is empty!
.text:0800001D fst [ebp+var_18]
// poping st(0) will empty the floating registers stack
.text:08000020 fstp st(0)
The `0800001D fst [ebp+var_18]' will store st(0) to a memory
location, but st(0) is empty. That will cause FPU invalid operation
exception(#IE).
Why does tcc do that? Please read `gv_dup' called by `inc' carefully.
Notice these lines:
(1): r = gv(rc);
(2): r1 = get_reg(rc);
(3): sv.r = r;
sv.c.ul = 0;
(4) load(r1, &sv); /* move r to r1 */
(5) vdup();
/* duplicates value */
(6) vtop->r = r1;
(1) let the vtop occupy TREG_ST0, and `r' will be TREG_ST0. (2)
try to get a free floating register,but tcc assume
there is only one, so it wil force vtop goto memory and assign `r1'
with TREG_ST0. When executing (3), it will do nothing
because `r' equals `r1'. (5) duplicates vtop. Then (6) let the new
vtop occupy TREG_ST0, but this will cause problem
because the old vtop has been moved to memory, so the new duplicated
vtop does not reside in TREG_ST0 but also
in memory after that. TREG_ST0 is not occupied but freely availabe
now. `gen_op('+')' need at least one oprand in register,
so it will incorrectly think TREG_ST0 is occupied by vtop and produce
instructions(0800001D and 08000020) to store it to
a temporary memory location.
According program above, if `r' == `r1' it is impossible for the old
vtop to still occupy the `r' register . And `load' will do nothing
too at this condition.
So the `gv_dup' can not promise the semantics that old vtop in one
register and the new duplicated vtop in another register at the same
time.
I changed (6) to
if (r != r1)
{
vtop->r = r1;
}
Then the new generated machine code will be :
.text:08000000 push ebp
.text:08000001 mov ebp, esp
.text:08000003 sub esp, 10h
.text:08000009 nop
.text:0800000A fld L_0
.text:08000010 fst [ebp+var_8]
.text:08000013 fstp st(0)
.text:08000015 fld [ebp+var_8]
.text:08000018 fst [ebp+var_10]
.text:0800001B fstp st(0)
.text:0800001D fld L_1
.text:08000023 fadd [ebp+var_10]
.text:08000026 fst [ebp+var_8]
.text:08000029 fstp st(0)
.text:0800002B leave
.text:0800002C retn
It works well, and will clean the floating registers stack when return.
Finally, I want to know there is any potential problem of this fixing ?
soloist
Joe Soroka