Re: [Tinycc-devel] Revert "better constant handling for expr_cond"

[Joe Soroka]

On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 10:26 AM, grischka <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> Issue: http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git/commitdiff/d7d84588
> ... not work.  See this:
>    printf("%.1f\n", 0 ? (printf("A"), 3.0) : (printf("B"), 4));
> ...
> Plus there might be other things wrong with the patch that this
> example does not show.  Not trivial, you see?

No, not trivial, you're right.  The change was less than half-baked
and I've just pushed a much more focused patch that actually works.

> Anyway we should not force TCC to do something what is was not
> written for.  It is waste of time.  If we want optimized code,
> then TCC wants an optimizer.  That is how it is.  Possible but
> non-trivial.

I agree 100%.  Performance/code-size is completely off my radar; I'm
not concerned at all with that.  I've just got mounds of Makefiles to
wade through, one of them was choking on this particular thing, and I
made a 'fix' way outside of where it belonged in an misguided effort
to be more general and 'clever' about it.

> Other topic:  I've seen you did something with the macro preprocessor.
> Could you make some progress there?
> I've attached the cpp tests from the pcc compiler.
>    http://pcc.ludd.ltu.se/
> Just in case you have fun to try how far TCC can get on this
> area.  (I've tried it some time ago, it was, well, ...)

Thanks for this.  I looked at the mcpp testsuite but got lost in the
scaffolding.  I will definitely take a look at the pcc suite.  I am
working on a few different PP issues at the moment and I'll be
interested to see if they're covered in the pcc suite.

Joe