Re: [Tinycc-devel] When is planned to be released the next version of Tcc?
Oh, I missed that, sorry.
conftest returns "arm-linux-gnueabihf" as expected, but the test in the
next line (configure:323):
if test -n "$tt" -a -f "/usr/lib/$tt/crti.o" ; then
is not true, because I do not have a directory such
/usr/lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf
[OFF]
It is funny though, conftest converts __ARM_EABI__ and __ARM_PCS_VFP
into a misty "gnueabihf", and then configure tries to decode this stuff
into TCC_CONFIG_ARM and TCC_ARM_EABI based on a mysterious assumption
("/usr/lib/$tt/crti.o"). Sidenote: this triplet thing is the most
shittiest thing in autotools (I know, tcc does not use autotools).
That's why I prefer scconfig (http://repo.hu/projects/scconfig/) for my
projects.
[ON]
Aron
On 12/23/18 3:07 PM, Christian Jullien wrote:
As said, it's a temporary tool deleted by ./configure right after it's use.
rm -f $TMPN* $CONFTEST
Can you trace configure script to see how it uses $CONFTEST in different places
and why configure.mak is not correct?
C.
-Original Message-
From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of Barath Aron
Sent: dimanche 23 décembre 2018 15:02
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] When is planned to be released the next version of
Tcc?
I just ran:
$ gcc conftest.c -o conftest && ./conftest triplet
arm-linux-gnueabihf
Although, it is strange, I do not have this executable after running
configure. Maybe configure decided to not use it?
On 12/23/18 2:43 PM, Christian Jullien wrote:
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:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of Barath Aron
Sent: dimanche 23 décembre 2018 14:32
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
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:
jullien@sims3:~/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:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of Barath Aron
Sent: dimanche 23 décembre 2018 13:55
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
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, s1@entry=0x454150,
fd=4562744, fd@entry=3, file_offset=4563600, file_offset@entry=0)
at tccelf.c:2357
2357sh_name = (char *) strsec + sh->sh_name;
(gdb) p i
$21 = 6
(gdb) n
2359if (sh->sh_type != SHT_PROGBITS &&
(gdb) p
Re: [Tinycc-devel] When is planned to be released the next version of Tcc?
As said, it's a temporary tool deleted by ./configure right after it's use.
rm -f $TMPN* $CONFTEST
Can you trace configure script to see how it uses $CONFTEST in different places
and why configure.mak is not correct?
C.
-Original Message-
From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of Barath Aron
Sent: dimanche 23 décembre 2018 15:02
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] When is planned to be released the next version of
Tcc?
I just ran:
$ gcc conftest.c -o conftest && ./conftest triplet
arm-linux-gnueabihf
Although, it is strange, I do not have this executable after running
configure. Maybe configure decided to not use it?
On 12/23/18 2:43 PM, Christian Jullien wrote:
> 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:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org]
> On Behalf Of Barath Aron
> Sent: dimanche 23 décembre 2018 14:32
> To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
> 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:
>>
>> jullien@sims3:~/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:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org]
>> On Behalf Of Barath Aron
>> Sent: dimanche 23 décembre 2018 13:55
>> To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
>> 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, s1@entry=0x454150,
>>> fd=4562744, fd@entry=3, file_offset=4563600, file_offset@entry=0)
>>> at tccelf.c:2357
>>> 2357sh_name = (char *) strsec + sh->sh_name;
>>> (gdb) p i
>>> $21 = 6
>>> (gdb) n
>>> 2359if (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
>>> 2439next: ;
>>> (gdb) n
>>> 2354if (i == ehdr.e_shstrndx)
>>> (gdb) p i
>>> $23 = 7
>>>
>>> 1879048193 == 0x7001 == SHT_ARM_EXIDX
>>>
>>> Aron
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/23/18 11:52 AM, Daniel Glöckner wrote:
On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at
Re: [Tinycc-devel] When is planned to be released the next version of Tcc?
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:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of Barath Aron
Sent: dimanche 23 décembre 2018 14:32
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
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:
>
> jullien@sims3:~/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:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org]
> On Behalf Of Barath Aron
> Sent: dimanche 23 décembre 2018 13:55
> To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
> 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, s1@entry=0x454150,
>> fd=4562744, fd@entry=3, file_offset=4563600, file_offset@entry=0)
>> at tccelf.c:2357
>> 2357sh_name = (char *) strsec + sh->sh_name;
>> (gdb) p i
>> $21 = 6
>> (gdb) n
>> 2359if (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
>> 2439next: ;
>> (gdb) n
>> 2354if (i == ehdr.e_shstrndx)
>> (gdb) p i
>> $23 = 7
>>
>> 1879048193 == 0x7001 == 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
>>> 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
>
> ___
> 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] 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:
jullien@sims3:~/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:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of Barath Aron
Sent: dimanche 23 décembre 2018 13:55
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
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, s1@entry=0x454150,
fd=4562744, fd@entry=3, file_offset=4563600, file_offset@entry=0)
at tccelf.c:2357
2357sh_name = (char *) strsec + sh->sh_name;
(gdb) p i
$21 = 6
(gdb) n
2359if (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
2439next: ;
(gdb) n
2354if (i == ehdr.e_shstrndx)
(gdb) p i
$23 = 7
1879048193 == 0x7001 == 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
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
___
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
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] When is planned to be released the next version of Tcc?
On Raspbian, running ./configure I get:
jullien@sims3:~/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:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of Barath Aron
Sent: dimanche 23 décembre 2018 13:55
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
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, s1@entry=0x454150,
> fd=4562744, fd@entry=3, file_offset=4563600, file_offset@entry=0)
> at tccelf.c:2357
> 2357sh_name = (char *) strsec + sh->sh_name;
> (gdb) p i
> $21 = 6
> (gdb) n
> 2359if (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
> 2439next: ;
> (gdb) n
> 2354if (i == ehdr.e_shstrndx)
> (gdb) p i
> $23 = 7
>
> 1879048193 == 0x7001 == 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
>> 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
___
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] 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, s1@entry=0x454150,
fd=4562744, fd@entry=3, file_offset=4563600, file_offset@entry=0)
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 == 0x7001 == 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
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
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] When is planned to be released the next version of Tcc?
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, s1@entry=0x454150,
fd=4562744, fd@entry=3, file_offset=4563600, file_offset@entry=0)
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 == 0x7001 == 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
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] When is planned to be released the next version of Tcc?
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 Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] When is planned to be released the next version of Tcc?
After looking into the code, my guess is that it's garbage.
I traced the whole object loading procedure with gdb:
- ARM_EXIDX (section 6) is definitely not loaded, I traced it with gdb.
- However, section 7 is loaded, despite of it refers to an unloaded
section (in my case: section 6).
Aron
On 12/23/18 11:21 AM, Christian Jullien wrote:
Aron, I really would love to help you but I know nothing about ELF.
From your mail, I'm only able to tall that s (0x4) from:
$2 = {s = 0x4, offset = 0, new_section = 45 '-', link_once = 0 '\000'}
Is not a valid address to allow to take sh_num. Don't ask me why.
sm_table[sh->sh_info].s->sh_num;
Are you able to trace why/who set this value to 4?
C.
-Original Message-
From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of Barath Aron
Sent: dimanche 23 décembre 2018 10:23
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] When is planned to be released the next version of
Tcc?
Scroll back to my mail dated on 12/3/18, 5:34 PM for details of the crash.
On 12/23/18 10:07 AM, Christian Jullien wrote:
Ouch! I don’t know about ARCH ARM Linux, I can just say it works nicely on RPi
ARM board:
jullien@sims3:~ $ tcc -v
tcc version 0.9.27 (ARM Hard Float Linux)
jullien@sims3:~ $ uname -a
Linux sims3 4.14.89-v7+ #1182 SMP Tue Dec 18 00:35:25 GMT 2018 armv7l GNU/Linux
jullien@sims3:~ $ cat hello1.c
#include
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
printf("Hello World!\n");
return 0;
}
jullien@sims3:~ $ tcc hello1.c
jullien@sims3:~ $ ./a.out
Hello World!
This tcc version allows me to pass my Lisp compiler huge non regression test
suite.
From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of Barath Aron
Sent: dimanche 23 décembre 2018 09:23
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] When is planned to be released the next version of
Tcc?
Let we argue about the "almost bug free" thing. I have a major issue with
0.9.27:
$ tcc -v
tcc version 0.9.27 (ARM Linux)
$ uname -a
Linux alarm 4.18.13-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Thu Oct 11 02:22:56 UTC 2018 armv7l
GNU/Linux
$ cat hello1.c
#include
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
printf("Hello World!\n");
return 0;
}
$ tcc hello1.c
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
I suppose this is not the intended behavior. Same effect with official package
and with mob.
(I already reported this bug, but it seems nobody cares.)
Aron
On 12/23/18 8:25 AM, Christian Jullien wrote:
I’m not the maintainer of tcc but I’ve no sign of a new version anytime soon.
What I can say however is that:
- 0.9.27 released last year is damn good and almost bug free on supported
platforms (I personally tested)
- Since last release, tcc activity has been rather low and I see no real
reasons to publish a 0.9.28
- I you want the latest version, I invite you to use mod which is also very
stable.
- As a general rule for a new version is that it comes out … when it’s ready
M2c
From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On Behalf Of Kantor Zsolt
Sent: samedi 22 décembre 2018 14:52
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: [Tinycc-devel] When is planned to be released the next version of Tcc?
The question is in the subject.
Thanks.
___
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
___
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
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] When is planned to be released the next version of Tcc?
Aron, I really would love to help you but I know nothing about ELF.
From your mail, I'm only able to tall that s (0x4) from:
$2 = {s = 0x4, offset = 0, new_section = 45 '-', link_once = 0 '\000'}
Is not a valid address to allow to take sh_num. Don't ask me why.
sm_table[sh->sh_info].s->sh_num;
Are you able to trace why/who set this value to 4?
C.
-Original Message-
From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of Barath Aron
Sent: dimanche 23 décembre 2018 10:23
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] When is planned to be released the next version of
Tcc?
Scroll back to my mail dated on 12/3/18, 5:34 PM for details of the crash.
On 12/23/18 10:07 AM, Christian Jullien wrote:
> Ouch! I don’t know about ARCH ARM Linux, I can just say it works nicely on
> RPi ARM board:
>
> jullien@sims3:~ $ tcc -v
> tcc version 0.9.27 (ARM Hard Float Linux)
>
> jullien@sims3:~ $ uname -a
> Linux sims3 4.14.89-v7+ #1182 SMP Tue Dec 18 00:35:25 GMT 2018 armv7l
> GNU/Linux
>
> jullien@sims3:~ $ cat hello1.c
> #include
>
> int main(int argc, char* argv[])
> {
> printf("Hello World!\n");
> return 0;
> }
> jullien@sims3:~ $ tcc hello1.c
> jullien@sims3:~ $ ./a.out
> Hello World!
>
> This tcc version allows me to pass my Lisp compiler huge non regression test
> suite.
>
>
> From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org]
> On Behalf Of Barath Aron
> Sent: dimanche 23 décembre 2018 09:23
> To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
> Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] When is planned to be released the next version
> of Tcc?
>
> Let we argue about the "almost bug free" thing. I have a major issue with
> 0.9.27:
>
> $ tcc -v
> tcc version 0.9.27 (ARM Linux)
>
> $ uname -a
> Linux alarm 4.18.13-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Thu Oct 11 02:22:56 UTC 2018 armv7l
> GNU/Linux
>
> $ cat hello1.c
> #include
>
> int main(int argc, char* argv[])
> {
> printf("Hello World!\n");
> return 0;
> }
>
> $ tcc hello1.c
> Segmentation fault (core dumped)
>
> I suppose this is not the intended behavior. Same effect with official
> package and with mob.
> (I already reported this bug, but it seems nobody cares.)
>
> Aron
>
> On 12/23/18 8:25 AM, Christian Jullien wrote:
> I’m not the maintainer of tcc but I’ve no sign of a new version anytime soon.
> What I can say however is that:
> - 0.9.27 released last year is damn good and almost bug free on supported
> platforms (I personally tested)
> - Since last release, tcc activity has been rather low and I see no real
> reasons to publish a 0.9.28
> - I you want the latest version, I invite you to use mod which is also very
> stable.
> - As a general rule for a new version is that it comes out … when it’s ready
>
> M2c
>
> From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org]
> On Behalf Of Kantor Zsolt
> Sent: samedi 22 décembre 2018 14:52
> To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
> Subject: [Tinycc-devel] When is planned to be released the next version of
> Tcc?
>
> The question is in the subject.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
> ___
> 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
___
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] When is planned to be released the next version of Tcc?
Scroll back to my mail dated on 12/3/18, 5:34 PM for details of the crash.
On 12/23/18 10:07 AM, Christian Jullien wrote:
Ouch! I don’t know about ARCH ARM Linux, I can just say it works nicely on RPi
ARM board:
jullien@sims3:~ $ tcc -v
tcc version 0.9.27 (ARM Hard Float Linux)
jullien@sims3:~ $ uname -a
Linux sims3 4.14.89-v7+ #1182 SMP Tue Dec 18 00:35:25 GMT 2018 armv7l GNU/Linux
jullien@sims3:~ $ cat hello1.c
#include
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
printf("Hello World!\n");
return 0;
}
jullien@sims3:~ $ tcc hello1.c
jullien@sims3:~ $ ./a.out
Hello World!
This tcc version allows me to pass my Lisp compiler huge non regression test
suite.
From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of Barath Aron
Sent: dimanche 23 décembre 2018 09:23
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] When is planned to be released the next version of
Tcc?
Let we argue about the "almost bug free" thing. I have a major issue with
0.9.27:
$ tcc -v
tcc version 0.9.27 (ARM Linux)
$ uname -a
Linux alarm 4.18.13-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Thu Oct 11 02:22:56 UTC 2018 armv7l
GNU/Linux
$ cat hello1.c
#include
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
printf("Hello World!\n");
return 0;
}
$ tcc hello1.c
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
I suppose this is not the intended behavior. Same effect with official package
and with mob.
(I already reported this bug, but it seems nobody cares.)
Aron
On 12/23/18 8:25 AM, Christian Jullien wrote:
I’m not the maintainer of tcc but I’ve no sign of a new version anytime soon.
What I can say however is that:
- 0.9.27 released last year is damn good and almost bug free on supported
platforms (I personally tested)
- Since last release, tcc activity has been rather low and I see no real
reasons to publish a 0.9.28
- I you want the latest version, I invite you to use mod which is also very
stable.
- As a general rule for a new version is that it comes out … when it’s ready
M2c
From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On Behalf Of Kantor Zsolt
Sent: samedi 22 décembre 2018 14:52
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: [Tinycc-devel] When is planned to be released the next version of Tcc?
The question is in the subject.
Thanks.
___
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
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] When is planned to be released the next version of Tcc?
Ouch! I don’t know about ARCH ARM Linux, I can just say it works nicely on RPi
ARM board:
jullien@sims3:~ $ tcc -v
tcc version 0.9.27 (ARM Hard Float Linux)
jullien@sims3:~ $ uname -a
Linux sims3 4.14.89-v7+ #1182 SMP Tue Dec 18 00:35:25 GMT 2018 armv7l GNU/Linux
jullien@sims3:~ $ cat hello1.c
#include
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
printf("Hello World!\n");
return 0;
}
jullien@sims3:~ $ tcc hello1.c
jullien@sims3:~ $ ./a.out
Hello World!
This tcc version allows me to pass my Lisp compiler huge non regression test
suite.
From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of Barath Aron
Sent: dimanche 23 décembre 2018 09:23
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] When is planned to be released the next version of
Tcc?
Let we argue about the "almost bug free" thing. I have a major issue with
0.9.27:
$ tcc -v
tcc version 0.9.27 (ARM Linux)
$ uname -a
Linux alarm 4.18.13-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Thu Oct 11 02:22:56 UTC 2018 armv7l
GNU/Linux
$ cat hello1.c
#include
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
printf("Hello World!\n");
return 0;
}
$ tcc hello1.c
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
I suppose this is not the intended behavior. Same effect with official package
and with mob.
(I already reported this bug, but it seems nobody cares.)
Aron
On 12/23/18 8:25 AM, Christian Jullien wrote:
I’m not the maintainer of tcc but I’ve no sign of a new version anytime soon.
What I can say however is that:
- 0.9.27 released last year is damn good and almost bug free on supported
platforms (I personally tested)
- Since last release, tcc activity has been rather low and I see no real
reasons to publish a 0.9.28
- I you want the latest version, I invite you to use mod which is also very
stable.
- As a general rule for a new version is that it comes out … when it’s ready
M2c
From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of Kantor Zsolt
Sent: samedi 22 décembre 2018 14:52
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: [Tinycc-devel] When is planned to be released the next version of Tcc?
The question is in the subject.
Thanks.
___
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] When is planned to be released the next version of Tcc?
Let we argue about the "almost bug free" thing. I have a major issue
with 0.9.27:
$ tcc -v
tcc version 0.9.27 (ARM Linux)
$ uname -a
Linux alarm 4.18.13-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Thu Oct 11 02:22:56 UTC 2018
armv7l GNU/Linux
$ cat hello1.c
#include
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
{
printf("Hello World!\n");
return 0;
}
$ tcc hello1.c
Segmentation fault (core dumped)
I suppose this is not the intended behavior. Same effect with official
package and with mob.
(I already reported this bug, but it seems nobody cares.)
Aron
On 12/23/18 8:25 AM, Christian Jullien wrote:
I’m not the maintainer of tcc but I’ve no sign of a new version
anytime soon.
What I can say however is that:
-0.9.27 released last year is damn good and almost bug free on
supported platforms (I personally tested)
-Since last release, tcc activity has been rather low and I see no
real reasons to publish a 0.9.28
-I you want the latest version, I invite you to use mod which is also
very stable.
-As a general rule for a new version is that it comes out … when it’s
ready
M2c
*From:*Tinycc-devel
[mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] *On Behalf
Of *Kantor Zsolt
*Sent:* samedi 22 décembre 2018 14:52
*To:* tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
*Subject:* [Tinycc-devel] When is planned to be released the next
version of Tcc?
The question is in the subject.
Thanks.
___
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] When is planned to be released the next version of Tcc?
I’m not the maintainer of tcc but I’ve no sign of a new version anytime soon. What I can say however is that: - 0.9.27 released last year is damn good and almost bug free on supported platforms (I personally tested) - Since last release, tcc activity has been rather low and I see no real reasons to publish a 0.9.28 - I you want the latest version, I invite you to use mod which is also very stable. - As a general rule for a new version is that it comes out … when it’s ready M2c From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On Behalf Of Kantor Zsolt Sent: samedi 22 décembre 2018 14:52 To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org Subject: [Tinycc-devel] When is planned to be released the next version of Tcc? The question is in the subject. Thanks. ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
