o(0xa9b27bfd); stp x29,x30,[sp,#-224]!
o(0xad0087e0); stp q0,q1,[sp,#16]
o(0xad018fe2); stp q2,q3,[sp,#48]
o(0xad0297e4); stp q4,q5,[sp,#80]
o(0xad039fe6); stp q6,q7,[sp,#112]
o(0xa90923e8); stp x8,x8,[sp,#144]
o(0xa90a07e0); stp x0,x1,[sp,#160]
o(0xa90b0fe2); stp x2,x3,[sp,#176]
o(0xa90c17e4); stp x4,x5,[sp,#192]
o(0xa90d1fe6); stp x6,x7,[sp,#208]
------------------ ???????? ------------------
??????: "tinycc-devel" <wine.dev@web.de>;
????????: 2022??7??8??(??????) ????7:39
??????: "tinycc-devel"<tinycc-devel@nongnu.org>;
????: [Tinycc-devel] new tcc release
The last tcc release is very old,
and tcc has received many fixes and new features since then.
What are the plans for a new release?
I vote for a 0.9.28 rc with the current features,
see, what simple fixes are possible
and then make a release in the next weeks.
(Would help distros to include a recent tcc)
Afterwarde prepare for tcc 1.0 later this year.
That would make it possible for distros to add
tcc 1.0 in there spring/LTS releases.
Unfortunately, we missed the 20. anniversary for tcc 1.0
(first commit: 27. Oct. 2001),
but releasing at the 21. anniversary is still possible.
For 1.0, i vote for fixing more bugs and verified C99 support,
either excluding Complex math or
with optional Complex math
(enable during configure, but defaults 'off')
tcc already understand some C11 features
and newer extensions (example: __has_include)
but the related implementation
is missing or buggy (_Atomic)
I would see fixes for C11 things as 'cool, when working',
but optional for tcc 1.0.
What are you think?
--
Regards, Detlef