Re: [Tinycc-devel] Option number is ambiguous (number-footnotes, number-sections) (texi2html) (patch)

2013-02-15 Thread Thomas Preud'homme 
Le vendredi 15 février 2013 19:14:23, Austin English a écrit :
> This was around before 0.9.26, but I forgot to report it:
> 
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/austin/src/tinycc/lib'
> ./texi2pod.pl tcc-doc.texi tcc.pod
> pod2man --section=1 --center=" " --release=" " tcc.pod > tcc.1
> texi2html -monolithic -number tcc-doc.texi
> Option number is ambiguous (number-footnotes, number-sections)
> Try `texi2html --help' for more information.
> make: [tcc-doc.html] Error 2 (ignored)
> makeinfo tcc-doc.texi
> 
> austin@aw25 ~/src/tinycc $ texi2html --version
> 5.0
> 
> austin@aw25 ~/src/tinycc $ uname -a
> Linux aw25 3.5.3-gentoo #4 SMP Wed Oct 24 21:55:24 PDT 2012 x86_64
> Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 960 @ 3.20GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux
> 
> The following patch fixes it:
> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
> index 705b585..9376132 100644
> --- a/Makefile
> +++ b/Makefile
> @@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ endif
> 
>  # documentation and man page
>  tcc-doc.html: tcc-doc.texi
> - -texi2html -monolithic -number $<
> + -texi2html -monolithic -number-sections $<
> 
>  tcc.1: tcc-doc.texi
>   -$(top_srcdir)/texi2pod.pl $< tcc.pod

Go ahead and commit it to the mob branch. As I said I'd like to release more 
often, around 1 release a year like before. Let's make the next release even 
better than this one :)

Best regards,

Thomas


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel

[Tinycc-devel] Option number is ambiguous (number-footnotes, number-sections) (texi2html) (patch)

2013-02-15 Thread Austin English 
This was around before 0.9.26, but I forgot to report it:

make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/austin/src/tinycc/lib'
./texi2pod.pl tcc-doc.texi tcc.pod
pod2man --section=1 --center=" " --release=" " tcc.pod > tcc.1
texi2html -monolithic -number tcc-doc.texi
Option number is ambiguous (number-footnotes, number-sections)
Try `texi2html --help' for more information.
make: [tcc-doc.html] Error 2 (ignored)
makeinfo tcc-doc.texi

austin@aw25 ~/src/tinycc $ texi2html --version
5.0

austin@aw25 ~/src/tinycc $ uname -a
Linux aw25 3.5.3-gentoo #4 SMP Wed Oct 24 21:55:24 PDT 2012 x86_64
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 960 @ 3.20GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux

The following patch fixes it:
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile
index 705b585..9376132 100644
--- a/Makefile
+++ b/Makefile
@@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ endif

 # documentation and man page
 tcc-doc.html: tcc-doc.texi
-   -texi2html -monolithic -number $<
+   -texi2html -monolithic -number-sections $<

 tcc.1: tcc-doc.texi
-$(top_srcdir)/texi2pod.pl $< tcc.pod

-- 
-Austin

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

[Tinycc-devel] TinyCC 0.9.26 released

2013-02-15 Thread Thomas Preud'homme 
Greetings everybody,

it is my pleasure to finally announce the release of TinyCC 0.9.26. This 
release has been longer than previously to come along but it's finally here. 
This release would not have been possible without the contributions of many 
developpers and testers. Thank you:

Akim Demaille
Alexandre Becoulet
Ali Gholami Rudi
Andrew Mulbrook
Ben Bacarisse
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
bobbl
Changming Xu
Christian Jullien
Claudio Bley
Daniel Glöckner
Dennis
Detlef Riekenberg
Domingo Alvarez Duarte
Feret
Frederic Feret
Gabriel Corneanu
grischka
Henry Kroll III
Hitoshi Mitake
Jaroslav Kysela
Joe Soroka
Kirill Smelkov
Luigi Rizzo
Manuel Simoni
Michael Matz
Milutin Jovanovic
mingodad
Nicolas Limare
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
Ramsay Jones
Romain Francoise
Roy Tam
Sam Watkins
Sergei Trofimovich
Sergey Vinokurov
Shinichiro Hamaji
Soloist Deng
Thomas Preud'homme
Timo VJ Lahde 
Urs Janßen
Vincent Lefevre
yuanbin

for improving tinycc and:
 
Aharon Robbins 
Austin English
Christian Jullien 
Didier Barvaux
Domingo Alvarez Duarte
Feng Nauh
Jerry Reed
Ramsay Jones 
Robert Clausecker
Urs Janßen

for your prompt and thorough testing. A special thanks as well for Grishka, 
who despite not doing the release, have constantly supervized the 
developpement of TinyCC by reviewing most of the commits that where done, by 
giving advices, and by all the commits he did himself.



Most important changes since previous release are summarized below. For more 
details, please refer to the git log.

*** Major changes since TinyCC 0.9.25 ***

User interface:
- -MD/-MF (automatically generate dependencies for make)
- -pthread option (same as -D_REENTRANT -lpthread) (Henry Kroll III)
- -m32/-m64 to re-exec cross compiler (Henry Kroll III)
- -Wl, Mimic all GNU -option forms supported by ld (Kirill Smelkov)
- new LIBTCCAPI tcc_set_options() (grischka)

Platforms:
- Many improvements for x86-64 target (Shinichiro Hamaji, Michael Matz, 
grischka)
- x86-64 assembler (Frederic Feret)
- Many improvements for ARM target (Daniel Glöckner, Thomas Preud'homme)
- Support WinCE PE ARM (Timo VJ Lahde)
- Support ARM hardfloat calling convention (Thomas Preud'homme)
- Support SELinux (Security-Enhanced Linux) (Henry Kroll III)
- Support Debian GNU/kFreeBSD kernels (Pierre Chifflier)
- Support GNU/Hurd kernels (Thomas Preud'homme)
- Support OSX (tcc -run only) (Milutin Jovanovic)
- Support multiarch configuration (Thomas Preud'homme)
- Support out-of-tree build (Akim Demaille)

Features:
- C99 variable length arrays (Thomas Preud'homme & Joe Soroka)
- Asm labels for variables and functions (Thomas Preud'homme)
- STT_GNU_IFUNC (Indirect functions as externals) (Thomas Preud'homme)
- More tests (tests2) (Milutin Jovanovic)


Best regards,

Thomas Preud'homme


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Quick question regarding --with-libgcc

2013-02-15 Thread Thomas Preud'homme 
Le vendredi 15 février 2013 15:13:25, Christian JULLIEN a écrit :
> Quick question, I thought that recent config work was supposed to solve,
> among other things, the need to pass --with-libgcc (sorry if I'm wrong)
> 
> On RPi, while ./configure; make; make test works ROOTB
> 
> I still have to use ./configure --with-libgcs if I later do a "make
> install" and want to use tcc as gcc replacement Doing so, I get no error
> while, without --with-libgcc, important ARM eabi functions are missing.
> 
> ld uxlisp ...
> tcc: error: undefined symbol '__aeabi_uidiv'
> tcc: error: undefined symbol '__aeabi_uidivmod'
> tcc: error: undefined symbol '__aeabi_idiv'
> tcc: error: undefined symbol '__aeabi_idivmod'
> make[1]: *** [uxlisp] Error 1
> 
> Could you please confirm that, at least in case of RPI, I still have to
> pass --with-libgcc

Yes, we still didn't write these functions for libtcc1.a. The nice thing is 
that having a libtcc1.a for arm would solve the problem of alloca at the same 
time.

> 
> Can't we detect (how?) that a platform requires --with-libgcc

Yes but the best fix would be to just fix that specific issue. It shouldn't be 
too long.

> 
> Christian

Best regards,

Thomas


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel

[Tinycc-devel] Quick question regarding --with-libgcc

2013-02-15 Thread Christian JULLIEN 
Quick question, I thought that recent config work was supposed to solve, among 
other things, the need to pass --with-libgcc (sorry if I'm wrong)

On RPi, while ./configure; make; make test works ROOTB

I still have to use ./configure --with-libgcs if I later do a "make install" 
and want to use tcc as gcc replacement
Doing so, I get no error while, without --with-libgcc, important ARM eabi 
functions are missing.

ld uxlisp ...
tcc: error: undefined symbol '__aeabi_uidiv'
tcc: error: undefined symbol '__aeabi_uidivmod'
tcc: error: undefined symbol '__aeabi_idiv'
tcc: error: undefined symbol '__aeabi_idivmod'
make[1]: *** [uxlisp] Error 1

Could you please confirm that, at least in case of RPI, I still have to pass 
--with-libgcc

Can't we detect (how?) that a platform requires --with-libgcc

Christian

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

Re: [Tinycc-devel] RE :Re: Using clang

2013-02-15 Thread Thomas Preud'homme 
Le vendredi 15 février 2013 14:49:09, Christian JULLIEN a écrit :
> Thomas, your last commit lets Makefile find again GCC and now correctly
> sets CFLAGS with warnings we want to ignore.
> 
> Christian

Not mine, Urs's.

Thomas


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel

[Tinycc-devel] RE :Re: Using clang

2013-02-15 Thread Christian JULLIEN 
Thomas, your last commit lets Makefile find again GCC and now correctly sets 
CFLAGS with warnings we want to ignore.

Christian



- Message d'origine -
De : "Thomas Preud'homme" 
Date ven. 15/02/2013 14:27 (GMT +01:00)
À : "tinycc-devel@nongnu.org" 
Cc : "Urs Janssen" 
Objet : Re: [Tinycc-devel] Using clang

Le vendredi 15 février 2013 13:39:57, grischka a écrit :
> You wrote:
> > fixed pasto in in 108b2876; background for the additional $CC test is:
> > GCC_MAJOR may be set even is $CC not realy gcc (but i.e. clang, which 
(as
> > of 3.1) requires an addtional CFLAG to accept the non portable 
(gnuisms
> > all over the place; try to cimpile tcc with Sun^HOracle, Intel,
> > Pathscale, ... compiler) code).
> 
> Using "-fheinous-gnu-extensions" for clang makes sense but I still
> don't see how "GCC_MAJOR may be set even is $CC not realy gcc"???

I suppose like for tinycc, lots of code out there test GCC_MAJOR and GCC_MINOR 
for available features so other compilers with good compatibility with gcc 
have no choice but to pretend to be gcc.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --- grischka

Best regards,

Thomas
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Using clang

2013-02-15 Thread Thomas Preud'homme 
Le vendredi 15 février 2013 13:39:57, grischka a écrit :
> You wrote:
> > fixed pasto in in 108b2876; background for the additional $CC test is:
> > GCC_MAJOR may be set even is $CC not realy gcc (but i.e. clang, which (as
> > of 3.1) requires an addtional CFLAG to accept the non portable (gnuisms
> > all over the place; try to cimpile tcc with Sun^HOracle, Intel,
> > Pathscale, ... compiler) code).
> 
> Using "-fheinous-gnu-extensions" for clang makes sense but I still
> don't see how "GCC_MAJOR may be set even is $CC not realy gcc"???

I suppose like for tinycc, lots of code out there test GCC_MAJOR and GCC_MINOR 
for available features so other compilers with good compatibility with gcc 
have no choice but to pretend to be gcc.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --- grischka

Best regards,

Thomas


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel

[Tinycc-devel] Using clang

2013-02-15 Thread grischka 

You wrote:

fixed pasto in in 108b2876; background for the additional $CC test is:
GCC_MAJOR may be set even is $CC not realy gcc (but i.e. clang, which (as
of 3.1) requires an addtional CFLAG to accept the non portable (gnuisms all
over the place; try to cimpile tcc with Sun^HOracle, Intel, Pathscale, ...
compiler) code).


Using "-fheinous-gnu-extensions" for clang makes sense but I still
don't see how "GCC_MAJOR may be set even is $CC not realy gcc"???

Thanks,

--- grischka


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

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Many new warnings since yesterday

2013-02-15 Thread Thomas Preud'homme 
Le vendredi 15 février 2013 12:04:44, grischka a écrit :
> Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> > Look at the top of the Makefile. Something's wrong when detecting your
> > compiler. But the code didn't change, ...
> 
> See http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git/commitdiff/108b2876
> 
> --- grischka

o_O I should have pulled.

Urs, Can you explain a bit about this commit? GCC_MAJOR is tested in configure 
by compiling with $cc so if GCC_MAJOR is set it means the compiler used to 
compile tinycc claims to be compatible with gcc at this specific major and 
minor version.

Best regards,

Thomas


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel

[Tinycc-devel] RE :Re: Many new warnings since yesterday

2013-02-15 Thread Christian JULLIEN 
BINGO! This line
ifeq (-$(findstring clang,$(CC))-,-gcc-)

returns false and GCC specific flags are not used, If I remove this if (and 
associated else)
tcc compiles with no warnings as yesterday

Christian

- Message d'origine -
De : "grischka" 
Date ven. 15/02/2013 12:18 (GMT +01:00)
À : "tinycc-devel@nongnu.org" 
Objet : Re: [Tinycc-devel] Many new warnings since yesterday

Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> Look at the top of the Makefile. Something's wrong when detecting your 
> compiler. But the code didn't change, ...

See http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git/commitdiff/108b2876

--- grischka


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

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Many new warnings since yesterday

2013-02-15 Thread grischka 

Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
Look at the top of the Makefile. Something's wrong when detecting your 
compiler. But the code didn't change, ...


See http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git/commitdiff/108b2876

--- grischka


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

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Many new warnings since yesterday

2013-02-15 Thread Thomas Preud'homme 
Le vendredi 15 février 2013 11:39:44, Christian JULLIEN a écrit :
> Can you show me the content of config.mak? Especially, what is the value of
> GCC_MAJOR and GCC_MINOR?
> 
> [cjullien@hilbert 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=$(DESTDIR)/usr/local/lib
> ln_libdir=/usr/local/lib
> includedir=$(DESTDIR)/usr/local/include
> mandir=$(DESTDIR)/usr/local/share/man
> infodir=$(DESTDIR)/usr/local/share/info
> docdir=$(DESTDIR)/usr/local/share/doc/tcc
> CC=gcc
> GCC_MAJOR=4
> GCC_MINOR=4

Normally with this you should pick up:

CFLAGS+=-fno-strict-aliasing
CFLAGS+=-Wno-pointer-sign -Wno-sign-compare
and CFLAGS+=-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=0

Look at the top of the Makefile. Something's wrong when detecting your 
compiler. But the code didn't change, it's just that you don't pass the right 
compiler flag anymore at compile time.

What version of make do you have? Do you have the ifeq (-$(findstring 
$(GCC_MAJOR),01)-,--) test at the top of the Makefile?

Best regards,

Thomas


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel

[Tinycc-devel] RE :Re: Many new warnings since yesterday

2013-02-15 Thread Christian JULLIEN 
Can you show me the content of config.mak? Especially, what is the value of 
GCC_MAJOR and GCC_MINOR?

[cjullien@hilbert 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=$(DESTDIR)/usr/local/lib
ln_libdir=/usr/local/lib
includedir=$(DESTDIR)/usr/local/include
mandir=$(DESTDIR)/usr/local/share/man
infodir=$(DESTDIR)/usr/local/share/info
docdir=$(DESTDIR)/usr/local/share/doc/tcc
CC=gcc
GCC_MAJOR=4
GCC_MINOR=4
HOST_CC=gcc
AR=ar
STRIP=strip -s -R .comment -R .note
CFLAGS=-Wall -g -O2
LDFLAGS=
LIBSUF=.a
EXESUF=
NATIVE_DEFINES+=-DCONFIG_LDDIR="\"lib64\""
ARCH=x86-64
TARGETOS=Linux
VERSION=0.9.25
SRC_PATH=/home/cjullien/tinycc
top_srcdir=$(TOP)
top_builddir=$(TOP)



- Message d'origine -
De : "Thomas Preud'homme" 
Date ven. 15/02/2013 11:08 (GMT +01:00)
À : "tinycc-devel@nongnu.org" 
Cc : "Christian Jullien" 
Objet : Re: [Tinycc-devel] Many new warnings since yesterday

Le vendredi 15 février 2013 07:11:58, Christian Jullien a écrit :
> Yesterday, Grischka applied my patch to remove last warning (thanks
> Grischka), tcc compiled with NO warning at all.
> 
> This morning, with no changes on my config (same compiler, same options,
> same script to fetch mod and compile), I get many more warnings on RPi as
> well as on Fedora 18 x86_64

Can you show me the content of config.mak? Especially, what is the value of 
GCC_MAJOR and GCC_MINOR?

Best regards,

Thomas
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel

[Tinycc-devel] RE :Re: Many new warnings since yesterday

2013-02-15 Thread Christian JULLIEN 
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Many new warnings since yesterday

2013-02-15 Thread Thomas Preud'homme 
Le vendredi 15 février 2013 07:11:58, Christian Jullien a écrit :
> Yesterday, Grischka applied my patch to remove last warning (thanks
> Grischka), tcc compiled with NO warning at all.
> 
> This morning, with no changes on my config (same compiler, same options,
> same script to fetch mod and compile), I get many more warnings on RPi as
> well as on Fedora 18 x86_64

Can you show me the content of config.mak? Especially, what is the value of 
GCC_MAJOR and GCC_MINOR?

Best regards,

Thomas


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Many new warnings since yesterday

2013-02-15 Thread Thomas Preud'homme 
Le vendredi 15 février 2013 07:11:58, Christian Jullien a écrit :
> Yesterday, Grischka applied my patch to remove last warning (thanks
> Grischka), tcc compiled with NO warning at all.
> 
> This morning, with no changes on my config (same compiler, same options,
> same script to fetch mod and compile), I get many more warnings on RPi as
> well as on Fedora 18 x86_64

I'm curious to see what warning you have on Fedora. I don't have any on Debian 
x86_64.

> 
> Please note that RPi uses default unsigned char which is different than
> x86, so sign warnings may be annoying

I know :)

> 
> To me, a release build should be warning free. Warning free does not mean
> that build is free of ALL possible warnings (for example using extra -Wxx,
> using llvm or splint - I recommend splint) it means release manager is
> aware of suspicious code and either, by order of priority:
> 
> - fix it
> - patch it in order to make build happy
> - remove offending warning flag for release (and reintroduce this flag in
> trunk right after the official release)

I'm sorry but I disagree. Trying to fix these bugs now might result in 
breakages and would delay the release longer. Trying to make the perfect 
release might lead us to delay by many months at best, or never release in the 
worst case. There is still several things broken: variadic function are 
unusable with libgcc for instance.

Yes you're right, warning indicates possible coding errors but there is also 
false positive. Hence we should definitely look at these warnings and fix what 
is programming error and leave the other ones. Masking them (with compiler 
switch) would also mask other legitimate warnings so it's better to let false 
positive be reported and hope for static analysis in compilers to improve.

In other words, I suggest we look (you're welcome to look at it yourself if 
you want things to be fixed faster) at it just after the release and target 
another release not so long time from now. It would be nice to have a release 
a year I think. It would allow for fixes to flow in stable release faster.

> 
> Btw, I don't see what recent change produces those new warnings.

Me neither.

Thomas


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel

[Tinycc-devel] RE :Re: test failure on Linux

2013-02-15 Thread Christian JULLIEN 
Except annoying new warnings reported on another thread, CentOS 6.3 x86_64 
works using ./configure


- Message d'origine -
De : "Thomas Preud'homme" 
Date ven. 15/02/2013 00:07 (GMT +01:00)
À : "Christian JULLIEN" 
Cc : "tinycc-devel@nongnu.org" , "grischka" 

Objet : Re: [Tinycc-devel] test failure on Linux

Le jeudi 14 février 2013 18:05:24, Christian JULLIEN a écrit :
> This commit still works on RPi but produces
> 
>  test3 
> ../tcc -B.. -DCONFIG_LDDIR="\"lib64\"" -DTCC_TARGET_X86_64 -DONE_SOURCE
> -run ../tcc.c -B.. -DCONFIG_LDDIR="\"lib64\"" -DTCC_TARGET_X86_64
> -DONE_SOURCE -run ../tcc.c -B.. -DCONFIG_LDDIR="\"lib64\""
> -DTCC_TARGET_X86_64 -DONE_SOURCE -run ../tcc.c -B.. -run tcctest.c >
> test.out3 tcc: error: undefined symbol '__floatundixf'
> tcc: error: undefined symbol '__va_start'
> tcc: error: undefined symbol '__va_end'
> make[1]: *** [test3] Error 255
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/cjullien/tinycc/tests'

I thought I was testing with libgcc but I realized I wasn't. Testing with 
libgcc I can fully reproduce this bug.

This seems to be symbols no longer exported by libgcc_s. For instance, 
__va_start is now defined to __builtin_va_start which is probably provided by 
gcc itself since I can't find it in libgcc_s.

I guess it's the same for __floatundixf. I believe fixing it would take some 
time but I'm a bit annoyed that this doesn't work. Note though that tinycc 
would work most of the time, and the option of using libtcc1 remains.

What's your opinion Grischka?

Best regards,

Thomas
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel