Re: [Tinycc-devel] TCC on new ARM EABI (ARMEL) [PATCH]

[Rob Landley]

On Monday 09 October 2006 12:19 pm, Daniel Glöckner wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 09, 2006 at 04:52:19PM +0200, Daniel Glöckner wrote:
> > and I would not have inserted that bug in gen_cvt_itof by
> > incorrectly using func_old_type.
> 
> Patch for this bug (and another one that I found while testing the
> patch) attached. Apply after the big EABI patch.

I'm fairly deeply lost, but I applied both patches and updated the repo and 
tarball on my website anyway.

It seems that the ARM EABI and the arm-noneabi are now two different output 
targets (a bit like x86 linux binaries and x86 windows pe binaries).  
Possibly there should be two executables produced?  (arm-tcc and 
arm-eabi-tcc?)  Figuring out how to scale that to support more backends 
easily is a todo item...

I'm also pondering what to do about the overabundance of #ifdefs.  For BusyBox 
I beat the config infrastructure into producing ENABLE macros that were 
always defined, but were 1 or 0 so you could use an if (ENABLE_BLAH) instead 
of #ifdef CONFIG_BLAH, and the compiler would optimize out the test against a 
constant, and yank the code in the if (0) case via dead code elimination.  I 
believe that tcc handles this just fine.  (I vaguely remember asking about it 
a couple years ago.  I'm returning to tcc after a ~3 year absence, apparently 
my last post until recently was February 7, 2003...)

>   Daniel

Rob
-- 
Never bet against the cheap plastic solution.