Re: [Tinycc-devel] __builtin_va_* builtins missing

[Steffen Nurpmeso]

Daniel Wingerd wrote in <CAAQy0x2a8yXXZenerY+QWKn7f+GHOZkmzqVqCEps2_k_9w\
address@hidden>:
 |I'm working on getting musl to build using TCC and the first problem I
 |encountered was that TCC is missing __builtin_va_* builtins.  I've
 |tried adding it on my own and failed miserably since I don't really
 |understand TCC's internals.  I do recognize the va_* macros are
 |defined in include/stdarg.h but all the C compilers I've checked (even
 |Watcom and PCC) define these as builtin functions so it only seems
 |right that TCC follow suit instead of expecting special exceptions to
 |be made for it (in every libc's stdarg.h).
 |
 |Explicitly, these need to be added into tcctok.h and implemented in
 |tccgen.c in the unary() function.
 |__builtin_va_start
 |__builtin_va_arg
 |__builtin_va_copy
 |__builtin_va_end
 |
 |It shouldn't be a much effort for someone who knows the TCC internals
 |since their behavior is clearly defined in TCC's include/stdarg.h.
 |
 |Is anyone willing to take up this task?

No, because i cannot.  I, just like you.  But i do not agree,
i think it is terrible that all these things are built into these
huge ones etc. etc.  I think it is just fine that these are
defined in C headers, and picked up by all interested parties.
For me the problem goes away if tcc explicitly loads its own ABI
files first, i will attach the patches i use.  I know AlpineLinux
ships a tcc package which seemed to work without that, but i do
set C_INCLUDE_PATH and LD_LIBRARY_PATH and i think doing so should
not cause any failures.  They are tcc-specific ABI headers in the
end.  I think the really right approach would be some kind of
#include_next on top of that, but that i, just like you.
Ciao.
 !@ /tmp/tcc.eml

--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,                The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter           he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter  wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)

tcc.eml
Description: application/mbox