Re: [Tinycc-devel] Feature request: Implementing asm directives .set and .equ

[Jens Nyberg]

2013/8/26 Thomas Preud'homme <address@hidden>:
> Le lundi 26 août 2013 22:50:33 Jens Nyberg a écrit :
>> 2013/8/26 Thomas Preud'homme <address@hidden>:
>> > Le lundi 26 août 2013 13:07:37 Jens Nyberg a écrit :
>> >> Hi!
>> >>
>> >> I think implementing .set and .equ which are both functionally
>> >> equivalent would be a easy task unless someone is already working on
>> >> this?
>> >>
>> >> If I implement it myself I assume what they do would be to define a
>> >> symbol with a value and that's it. Or am I missing something?
>> >>
>> >> And also, there is no reason for why these are not supported besides
>> >> lack of time?
>> >
>> > As most (all?) FLOSS project, there is difinitely a lack of time /
>> > manpower to work on TinyCC. The number of feature request and bug report
>> > is currently increasing and there seem to be no progress so far. There is
>> > a few bugs and improvement I'd like to work on myself for a long time but
>> > don't have time to work on for various reason.
>> >
>> > If you feel you can do it then please go ahead and feel free to ask
>> > questions. Help is more than welcome :)
>>
>> I'll see what I can do. =) I've actually spent a couple of weeks now
>> almost every day just trying to straighten up the whole tcc codebase
>> for a project of mine where I've removed all use of global variables
>> (most of them ended up in the tcc_state struct which in turn is passed
>> around).
>
> That's great news. Would the result allow to compile several program in
> parallel? If yes, the contribution could be interesting.
>

Yes I think in theory it could but that was not the reason I did it. I
did it because I prefer as few states as possible in my code. Also
when I did this I removed so much code that I knew I didn't need, like
arm, coff, pe, windows and -run support and a whole lot of other stuff
so I won't be able to backport any of those things to tcc. It requires
a lot of work but all I can say is that if someone wants to do it for
tcc it is possible but the changeset would include probably more than
2000 lines of code.

>> It was one hell of a job and I've now reached the point where
>> I am actually trying to compile another project of mine using it and
>> this is where I noticed these missing directives. The point of the
>> whole project is to create a non-posix freestanding i386/x86 compiler
>> so most changes I've done does not apply to tcc directly but the ones
>> that do (like this one) will be shared back to the community after
>> being ported back to tcc properly.
>
> Great, thanks :)
>
> Thomas