Re: [Tinycc-devel] forward asm symbols vs static

[Michael Matz]

Hi,

On Thu, 23 Nov 2017, avih wrote:

> > I hope it also works on win32 and win64, which I haven't tested
> asm-c-connect-test pass if the initial compiler is tcc 32 or 64 (and building 
> tcc 32/64 respectively).
> It segfaults if the initial compiler is gcc 64 (mingw gcc 7.2.0, in msys2 
> setup).
> I didn't test with gcc 32 mingw.

The test is always compiled by tcc.  So if you say "initial compiler", do 
you mean the compiler by which tcc itself is compiled?  I.e. there is a 
difference if tcc is compiled by gcc (tcc produces segfaulting code then), 
vs. with tcc (the resulting tcc produces good code)?

Hmpf.

Can you compile the two files separately into .o files and attach them 
here?  (With the failing compiler I mean).  Perhaps it's something 
obvious, but I can't test win32/64.


Ciao,
Michael.

> When it passes, this is what it prints:------------ asm-c-connect-test 
> ------------
> ./asm-c-connect
> x1
> x2
> x3
> And when it fails:../tcc.exe -B../../win32 -I../../include -I../.. -I.. -L.. 
> -o asm-c-connect.exe ../../tests/asm-c-connect-1.c 
> ../../tests/asm-c-connect-2.c
> ------------ asm-c-connect-test ------------
> ./asm-c-connect.exe
> make[1]: *** [Makefile:240: asm-c-connect-test] Segmentation fault
> make[1]: Leaving directory '<tcc-root>/bld/tests'
> make: *** [Makefile:346: test] Error 2
>  
> 
>     On Wednesday, November 22, 2017 7:11 PM, Michael Matz <address@hidden> 
> wrote:
>  
> 
>  Hi,
> 
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2017, Michael Matz wrote:
> 
> > > naively I'd think that it probably should more closely emulate the gcc 
> > > situation where inline asm ends up just as embedded snippets in its C -> 
> > > asm output.  Which could mean for example that "free_asm_labels" should 
> > > be called only once at the end of each "translation unit" (file).
> > 
> > Yes, that would be the ultimate goal.  As said, this would elevate the 
> > problem of sharing C-label and asm-label namespace, which already is a 
> > problem right now, even more.  So that needs solving, preferably without 
> > needing too much additional memory, then the move to a single end-of-file 
> > free_asm_labels, and then all is sunny :)
> > 
> > > Below is some test that I just have tried.
> > 
> > Yep, a conscise example of all asm- symbol table problems we have right 
> > now :)
> 
> I've fixed the problems I know about, including this two-file testcase 
> (I've added it to the testsuite, I hope it also works on win32 and win64, 
> which I haven't tested).
> 
> After release I'm probably going to change how the asm symtable is 
> implemented, which then does away with the new slot in TokenSym.  My idea 
> is to have just a single sym table for global decls, the C one, which can 
> be used for the asm one as well, with some slight adjustments.
> 
> But as is, it at least fixes the testcase, the linux-2.4.x 32bit kernel, 
> and 64bit linux 4.6, so I'm happy enough for now :)
> 
> 
> Ciao,
> Michael.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tinycc-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
> 
> 
>