tinycc-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Is the CVS repository dead yet?


From: grischka
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Is the CVS repository dead yet?
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:32:29 +0100

----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Landley" <address@hidden>
To: "Joshua Phillips" <address@hidden>
Cc: <address@hidden>
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Is the CVS repository dead yet?

On Thursday 19 March 2009 10:30:53 Joshua Phillips wrote:
Rob,

I feel your pain :(

I have had a look at the tcc git repository and it has many duplicated
commits (rebased?) and is a complete and utter mess.

I don't think it is an "utter mess", in that sense. I mean, if occasional duplicate commits make someone feel bad they can just delete them from their personal repo.

Similarly, I implemented -v -v -v to let you see what the compiler's search paths: the #include search path, and the linker search path, and what symbols the linker found while searching. http://landley.net/hg/tinycc/rev/d72f42753974

When tcc copied it, did they realize _why_ I did it?

What makes you think other people don't know what they are doing? And anyway why should other people have had the same "reason why"? After all your "reason why" must be seen in the context of a fork that is dead by now.

By the way, did they ever come up with a correct fix to this one? I can't get a log of changesets to see for myself:

If not you then everyone else at least can at http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git.
Yes, I occasionally broke stuff and had to fix it, but you can't grep for anything in tcc! Single character global variable/function names are a BAD THING. It needs to be FIXED. I was doing that, back before the 0.9.24 release rendered anything that _wasn't_ based off the 0.9.24 release (and never would be) obsolete and unofficial.

Actually everything essential from your fork went into the last release, except the "array [restrict]" fix as recently mentionned by someone on that list. You are welcome to push that on our "mob" branch, if you want to.

Any formal changes however were recjected.  There is absolutely no need to
change variable names at this time.  As for a different file structure with
subdirs, well, that may come, eventually. I just wanted to have the 0.9.24 release with the same file structure as before because like that it is easier to see the real changes. That's all.

Anyway, of course we appreciate and thank you for the work you did.  It
is just that you work was filtered and reviewed one more time. I think that is a good thing after all.

Let alone breaking out option parsing into a separate file, moving the code generators into per-target subdirectories, creating tcc.h in the first place... Nobody's doing infrastructure work on this thing. Nobody's trying to build real packages with it and fixing the bugs. Nobody's filling in the missing C99 features like variable sized arrays. Nobody's worried about powerpc or mips support, or trying to come up with a libtcc.a for arm. (Lots of code refactoring to make multiple backends easy to do systematically. Notice how I was doing lots of code refactoring?)

Well, you didn't anything of that either. You did many things that you said is (or at least looks to me like) "preparation work". However preparation for what? You are the only one to know and you never got there. So either your preparation work was wrong or the goal it was preparing for was the wrong one or maybe came at the wrong time. You cannot expect us to make the same mistake.
When I started my fork, tcc was already essentially dead. The _existence_ of my fork seemed to revitalize it. I'd work on my fork, work on the rest of tcc would pick up again. I'd stop work on my fork to get out of its way (the first time sending a tarball of accumulated patches to Fabrice), and tcc would grind to a halt again. So I'd start work over in mercurial again, and CVS would start moving again. I did this what, five times? Got sick of it.

But why? You worked on TinyCC and your work finally went into the main codebase.
Sure, not everything, but the good stuff did. What did you expect? If by the time you went too far with cluttering your fork with unneeded formal changes you cannot complain now that you have problems with backporting new contributions from the main base to your fork.
--- grischka





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]