|
From: | Masha Rabinovich |
Subject: | Re: [Tinycc-devel] Re: global 64-bit variables initialization |
Date: | Sat, 22 Nov 2008 14:31:17 +0100 |
Hello
I am not familiar as well. I am just trying to compile my code, then report the bugs if TCC reports compile error where it should not be, or if a TCC-compiled program crashes where GCC and VS compiled works fine.
To compile tinycc you may install mingw anf run build-tcc.bat, or change 'gcc' to 'tcc' inside the bat-file and compile new tinycc binary using old one. In the second case you have to instal lnothing except of TCC.
About the tasks.. I think, bug-fixing is important (at least for me:) but there are a few low-priority big tasks, like emiting #line in preprocessor output or producing .map-file and debug-info the debuggers can use (for example Microsoft's PDB-file)
Also would be nice to have some C++ support, but it could be very difficult, I lost the hope to have a superfast C++ compiler.
So far, I am not very familiar with the development process usedhere. Could you please assign me a ramp-up task? So thatI could warm myself quickly. Also, how could I set up myown development environment?I am now a software developer in Sybase. In my job,I work on develop, bug fixing for Sybase Replication Serverwhich is completely written in C. So far I have over 5 years of C programmingexperiences. I would like to contribute my effort to TCC.Thanks.-jl2008/11/22 Masha Rabinovich <address@hidden>
I do not have.
I would be nice if you will add some.
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Jerry <address@hidden> wrote:
Do you have enough regression test cases available? If not, I would like to add some.jl
2008/11/21 Masha Rabinovich <address@hidden>
The was not 1000000000 in the program I am trying to compile with tcc, but there was pointer + some small value in constant _expression_. the only reason I put 1000000000 in test case was to see in output a value different from regular pointer to be sure the additional is performed.Something like
====
char hello[]="hello";
char*hello10=hello+10;====
were a more correct testcase for constant pointer ariphmetic.Sorry for that.
And thank you for your work!
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Daniel Glöckner <address@hidden> wrote:
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 07:42:59PM +0100, Masha Rabinovich wrote:Done.
> main ? 0 : 1, // function pointer is always true
I removed the error message again. It was wrong in several ways.
There is no need for the _expression_ to evaluate to a value > 1000000000.
(int)main may be negative.
Actually I'm not convinced that these two casts must be supported outside
of functions. Section 6.6 in C99 draft N869 does not talk about casting
address constants to integers. It does allow implemetations to accept
other constant expressions, though.
I don't think we should add checks for all variants of invalid code.
> (int)main / 2, // here must be compile-time error, tcc can compile it
> sin(1) ? 0 : 1, // here must be compile-time error, tcc can compile it
IMHO the main focus should be on correctly compiling valid code.
Otherwise we'll soon have a not so tiny TinyCC.
Daniel
_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
--
Best Regards
-----------
Jerry Luo
_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
--
Best Regards
-----------
Jerry Luo
_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |