Re: [Tinycc-devel] tcc_relocate() and tcc_relocate_ex()

[Michael Matz]

Hi,

On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, grischka wrote:

> What about this:  Keep the 0.9.25 declaration of tcc_relocate, which was:

Sure.  Keep tcc_relocate with its current signature.

>   /* copy code into memory passed in by the caller and do all relocations
>      (needed before using tcc_get_symbol()).
>      returns -1 on error and required size if ptr is NULL */
>    LIBTCCAPI int tcc_relocate(TCCState *s1, void *ptr);
>
> but define a special value for 'ptr' to get behavior as of 0.9.24, as in:
>
>   /* Do all relocations. Needed before using tcc_get_symbol().
>      Possible values for ptr:
>        - TCC_RELOCATE_AUTO : Allocate memory internally
>        - NULL              : return required memory size for the step below
>        - memory address    : copy code into memory passed by the caller
>      returns -1 on error. */
>
>    LIBTCCAPI int tcc_relocate(TCCState *s1, void *ptr);
>    #define TCC_RELOCATE_AUTO (void*)-1
>
> Is this ugly?  Confusing?  0.9.26 isn't out yet so we can still decide.

You earnestly added this interface abomination to avoid exporting a 
function?  I mean, huh?  Well, as you asked: yes it's ugly, and yes it's 
confusing.  (and it's also non-C, ((void*)-1) might not be representable; 
the only integer literal that definitely is convertible into a pointer is 
0; but I'll admit that this would just be a nitpick).  But why you think 
this interface would be better than an explicit one with two functions is 
a complete mystery to me.  I mean, really, can you give a reason?  I'm 
seriously interested.


Ciao,
Michael.