[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Support -Wl,opt -Wl,arg syntax

From: Thomas Preud'homme
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Support -Wl,opt -Wl,arg syntax
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:11:11 +0100
User-agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.2.0-2-amd64; KDE/4.7.4; x86_64; ; )

Le mardi 20 mars 2012 12:44:25, grischka a écrit :
> Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> >> The problem with examples is that they can show bugs that exist, but
> >> not really the absence of bugs.  To test such feature I'd rather use
> >> some printf here or there.
> > 
> > And valgrind to test you don't free too early.
> The "free too early" bug wasn't really your fault but a mean trap
> made of bad balance and lack of isolation, though announced by the
> suspicious char* arg.  In that sense it is better not to have such
> code than to rely on valgrind.

The thing is I saw it was char * so I inspected the method but only followed 
options variable. I failed to see the assignment in p, although I was 
expecting this kind of code considering the char * (when the link_option 
function has a const char *).
> >> Anyway, the char * argument to tcc_set_linker is not really tolerable
> >> if we want to offer it as LIBTCCAPI to the user.  Also, instead of
> >> tcc_set_debug, tcc_set_warning, etc. it would be good to have one more
> >> generic 'tcc_set_option' API, of course with const char* argument(s)
> >> then.
> > 
> > This could/should we done in a separate commit, don't you think?
> That you volunteer to do it is more than I could expect.  In any case
> be careful with your precious (spring-)time ;)

I didn't realize I was volunteering. Anyway, why not, just not right now 
though. I guess it will wait a few weeks.

> --- grischka

Thomas Preud'homme

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

reply via email to

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