Re: [Tinycc-devel] include more options in configure

2012-05-27 Thread Pedro A ARANDA
> Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] include more options in configure to be > able to build tinycc with debian > Message-ID: <201205252045.44099.robo...@celest.fr> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Le vendredi 25 mai 2012 19:59:59, Pedro A ARANDA a ?crit : > > I needed to force con

Re: [Tinycc-devel] question about bit-fields

2012-05-27 Thread Michael Matz
Hi, On Sun, 27 May 2012, Michael Matz wrote: If one changes anything at all then it only makes sense to change it so as to be layout compatible with GCC. A third layout (GCC, TCC-old, TCC-new) wouldn't help. Although the rules of GCC are relatively obscure and complex in corner cases. Act

Re: [Tinycc-devel] question about bit-fields

2012-05-27 Thread Rick C. Hodgin
Alright. Sounds good. I'm in. :-) Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin Original Message From: Michael Matz Sent: Sun, May 27, 2012 04:49 PM To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org CC: Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] question about bit-fields >Hi, > >On Sun, 27 May 2012, Rick Hodgin wrote: > >>

Re: [Tinycc-devel] question about bit-fields

2012-05-27 Thread Michael Matz
Hi, On Sun, 27 May 2012, Rick Hodgin wrote: Didier, You're able to take the code and modify that requirement. It seems straight-forward enough that TinyCC is (in memory at compile-time) determining the target size, regardless of the storage size, and using that for the storage size in memo

Re: [Tinycc-devel] question about bit-fields

2012-05-27 Thread Rick Hodgin
Didier, You're able to take the code and modify that requirement. It seems straight-forward enough that TinyCC is (in memory at compile-time) determining the target size, regardless of the storage size, and using that for the storage size in memory. You could alter that code to always use the

Re: [Tinycc-devel] question about bit-fields

2012-05-27 Thread Didier Barvaux
> > Is there an option or a declaration to make tcc compute the expected > > length for unsigned-int-based bit fields? > > No, there isn't. > > AFAIK the C standard says this is implementation-defined. > For portability don't use bitfields. Thank for your answer. I see the problem. I added a ch

Re: [Tinycc-devel] question about bit-fields

2012-05-27 Thread Daniel Glöckner
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 11:12:39AM +0200, Didier Barvaux wrote: > Is there an option or a declaration to make tcc compute the expected > length for unsigned-int-based bit fields? No, there isn't. AFAIK the C standard says this is implementation-defined. For portability don't use bitfields. Dan

[Tinycc-devel] question about bit-fields

2012-05-27 Thread Didier Barvaux
Hello all, I'm trying to build my project with tcc (yesterday's git version). It succeeds without any required change (cool!), but tests fail :( I narrowed the problem to bit-fields, and more especially to the length of some bit-fields. I created a small test program to explain the problem: $ ca