Re: [Tinycc-devel] When is planned to be released the next version of Tcc?

[Christian Jullien]

Triplet is given by the temporary conftest tool. You can make it with:

$ gcc conftest.c -o conftest && ./conftest triplet
arm-linux-gnueabihf

Try to debug this very small C program to see why triplet is not  defined on 
your system.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of Barath Aron
Sent: dimanche 23 décembre 2018 14:32
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] When is planned to be released the next version of 
Tcc?

What is in your triplet? Mine is empty.

On 12/23/18 2:22 PM, Christian Jullien wrote:
> On Raspbian, running ./configure I get:
>
> address@hidden:~/tinycc $ more config.mak
> # Automatically generated by configure - do not modify
> prefix=/usr/local
> bindir=$(DESTDIR)/usr/local/bin
> tccdir=$(DESTDIR)/usr/local/lib/tcc
> libdir=$(DESTDIR)/usr/local/lib
> includedir=$(DESTDIR)/usr/local/include
> mandir=$(DESTDIR)/usr/local/share/man
> infodir=$(DESTDIR)/usr/local/share/info
> docdir=$(DESTDIR)/usr/local/share/doc
> CC=gcc
> GCC_MAJOR=6
> GCC_MINOR=3
> AR=ar
> STRIP=strip -s -R .comment -R .note
> CFLAGS=-Wall -g -O2 -Wdeclaration-after-statement -fno-strict-aliasing 
> -Wno-pointer-sign -Wno-sign-compare -Wno-unused-result
> LDFLAGS=
> LIBSUF=.a
> EXESUF=
> DLLSUF=.so
> NATIVE_DEFINES+=-DCONFIG_TRIPLET="\"arm-linux-gnueabihf\""
> NATIVE_DEFINES+=-DTCC_CPU_VERSION=7
> ARCH=arm
> TARGETOS=Linux
> CONFIG_arm_eabihf=yes
> CONFIG_arm_vfp=yes
> CONFIG_arm_vfp=yes
> VERSION = 0.9.27
> TOPSRC=$(TOP)
>
> This generated file is used by Makefile
> Line 11: include $(TOP)/config.mak
>
> Then
> Line 77: NATIVE_DEFINES_$(CONFIG_arm_eabihf) += -DTCC_ARM_EABI 
> -DTCC_ARM_HARDFLOAT
>
> IMHO, ./configure does something odd around line 336 with
>
>        if test "$cpu" = "arm" ; then
>          if test "${triplet%eabihf}" != "$triplet" ; then
>             confvars="$confvars arm_eabihf arm_vfp"
>          elif test "${triplet%eabi}" != "$triplet" ; then
>             confvars="$confvars arm_eabi"
>          fi
>          if grep -s -q "^Features.* \(vfp\|iwmmxt\) " /proc/cpuinfo ; then
>             confvars="$confvars arm_vfp"
>          fi
>        fi
>
>
> On my RPi it executes:
>
>          if test "${triplet%eabihf}" != "$triplet" ; then
>             confvars="$confvars arm_eabihf arm_vfp"
>
> Which, then results to -DTCC_ARM_EABI -DTCC_ARM_HARDFLOAT in Makefile.
>
> C.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of Barath Aron
> Sent: dimanche 23 décembre 2018 13:55
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] When is planned to be released the next version 
> of Tcc?
>
> I figured out. ARM_EXIDX was skipped because TCC_ARM_EABI was not
> defined. What I did was just run ./configure without any arguments and
> then a "make". Maybe this provides a clue to the maintainers.
>
> After hacking the defines (-DTCC_ARM_EABI -DTCC_ARM_HARDFLOAT), tcc now
> does not crash during linking, because it now cannot compile. Weird.
>
> Aron
>
>
> On 12/23/18 1:18 PM, Barath Aron wrote:
>> In tccelf.c:2359, it clearly jumps to the end of the loop.
>> And dies in the next loop: /* second short pass to update... */
>>
>> Take this gdb fragment as an explanation:
>>
>> Breakpoint 3, tcc_load_object_file (s1=0x45a098, address@hidden,
>>      fd=4562744, address@hidden, file_offset=4563600, address@hidden)
>>      at tccelf.c:2357
>> 2357            sh_name = (char *) strsec + sh->sh_name;
>> (gdb) p i
>> $21 = 6
>> (gdb) n
>> 2359            if (sh->sh_type != SHT_PROGBITS &&
>> (gdb) p *sh
>> $22 = {sh_name = 79, sh_type = 1879048193, sh_flags = 130, sh_addr = 0,
>>    sh_offset = 176, sh_size = 8, sh_link = 2, sh_info = 0, sh_addralign
>> = 4,
>>    sh_entsize = 0}
>> (gdb) n
>> 2439        next: ;
>> (gdb) n
>> 2354            if (i == ehdr.e_shstrndx)
>> (gdb) p i
>> $23 = 7
>>
>> 1879048193 == 0x70000001 == SHT_ARM_EXIDX
>>
>> Aron
>>
>>
>> On 12/23/18 11:52 AM, Daniel Glöckner wrote:
>>> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 11:44:50AM +0100, Barath Aron wrote:
>>>> I traced the whole object loading procedure with gdb:
>>>> - ARM_EXIDX (section 6) is definitely not loaded, I traced it with gdb.
>>> Where did tcc decide to skip ARM_EXIDX?
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tinycc-devel mailing list
>>> address@hidden
>>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tinycc-devel mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tinycc-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tinycc-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel


_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel