[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Status for 0.9.27

From: grischka
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Status for 0.9.27
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2016 18:19:11 +0100
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090812)

Christian Jullien wrote:
Hi all,

tcc status has never been clear to me. I mean, we don't really what has been
tested or not.

Honorable attempt, however I think peoples' mileage may vary as to
what "works" means.  Some may not consider tcc as a working compiler
at all, and maybe they're right.

I'd say: It does something, on linux and windows, best on i386 but also
on x86_64.  From how the sources look also some arm variants seem to
be supported, as well as aarch64 since lately.  FreeBSD has unresolved
linker problems, as well as -static on all platforms since well, forever.
For Apple it lacks a MACHO backend.  So that is pretty much the same
as you already noticed.

At least we can say that it does more than last release.

--- grischka

For example, who knows the status of FreeBSD on Aarch64?

It is generally admitted that tcc 'globally' works well on Linux and
Windows. If we go further and ask the same question with shared V.S. static
it is less clear. Is Aarch64 really supported? How has it been tested.

Can we really say that tcc works on Apple as it cannot produce executables?

On the other hand we know that it does not fully work on *BSD (x86/x86_64)

IMHO we should have better status based on tests made.

I'm ready to run standard regression tests and validate static executables
with my Lisp non-regression test on:

-          arm Linux

-          aarch64 Linux

-          x86 Windows

-          x86_64 Windows

We should have somewhere a spreadsheet with all features tcc supports we
will fill for different OS/processor



Tinycc-devel mailing list

reply via email to

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