Re: [Tinycc-devel] Small patch

[grischka]

Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> >  bcheck.o : lib/bcheck.c
> > -       gcc -c $< -o $@ $(CPPFLAGS) $(CFLAGS)
> > +       $(CC) -c $< -o $@ $(CPPFLAGS) $(CFLAGS)
>
> Unfortunetely it still breaks because of a wrong detection of GCC_MAJOR. 
> Because the test to determine the major version number of gcc fails, GCC_MAJOR 
> is set to 2. I made the following patch but I'm still not sure how to handle 
> flags when the compiler is not gcc.
>
> Shall no flag be set and the project fail because of missing -I for instance?
>
> I don't have a clear idea for now.

Maybe we should just put bcheck.o into libtcc1.a (and thus make via
the rules of lib/Makefile).  Unless there is a reason why we
shouldn't.

> -            h = elf_hash(name) % nbuckets;
> +            h = name ? elf_hash(name) % nbuckets : 0;

This is counterproductive IMO because when you read this you get
the wrong impression that there are cases where "name" is NULL.
But in fact there is no such case.  So the naive reader is misled,
while the knowledgeable reader must conclude that the writer didn't
know what s/he was doing.

>              boolean.t = VT_BOOL;
> +            boolean.ref = 0;

Also redundant because type.ref is used with type.t = VT_FUNC only.

I'm not completely opposed to make this look more solid but then
such patch should address the problem systematically such that the
code becomes smaller, not bigger.

> -                parse_btype(&btype, &ad);
> +                if (parse_btype(&btype, &ad))
> +                    expect("type");

Breaks tcc.  Never push without test, in particular not during the
"calm down period" before release. ;)

>     > -                strcpy(buf, "__bound_");
>     > -                strcat(buf, name);
>     > +                snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "__bound_%s", name);

There are cases where we might want to use "pstrcpy" instead of "strcpy".
This is no such case because "__bound_memcpy" cannot overflow buf[32].
Same with
        pstrcpy(buf, sizeof buf, "a.out");
Because "a.out" cannot overflow buf[1024].

--- grischka