Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?

2013-05-01 Thread Daniel Glöckner
Hi, On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 09:14:58PM +0200, Marc Andre Tanner wrote: The fear of proprietary forks seems unfounded because there is already a mature BSD licensed C compiler (clang) available for people to base their work on. Let's see.. $ size /opt/llvm/bin/clang textdata bss

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?

2013-05-01 Thread Armin Steinhoff
Daniel Glöckner wrote: Hi, On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 09:14:58PM +0200, Marc Andre Tanner wrote: The fear of proprietary forks seems unfounded because there is already a mature BSD licensed C compiler (clang) available for people to base their work on. Let's see.. $ size /opt/llvm/bin/clang

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?

2013-05-01 Thread KHMan
On 5/1/2013 5:58 PM, Daniel Glöckner wrote: On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 09:14:58PM +0200, Marc Andre Tanner wrote: The fear of proprietary forks seems unfounded because there is already a mature BSD licensed C compiler (clang) available for people to base their work on. Let's see.. $ size

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?

2013-05-01 Thread KHMan
On 5/1/2013 7:10 PM, Armin Steinhoff wrote: Daniel Glöckner wrote: On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 09:14:58PM +0200, Marc Andre Tanner wrote: The fear of proprietary forks seems unfounded because there is already a mature BSD licensed C compiler (clang) available for people to base their work on.

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?

2013-05-01 Thread Thomas Preud'homme
Le mercredi 1 mai 2013 05:54:54, KHMan a écrit : On 5/1/2013 9:51 AM, Rob Landley wrote: On 04/30/2013 11:53:31 AM, Daniel Glöckner wrote: On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 05:43:03PM +0200, Thomas Preud'homme wrote: As I already said privately, I'm fine with BSD-2-clause. Does that mean you

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Recent changes segfault on Linux ARM

2013-05-01 Thread Daniel Glöckner
On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 10:58:39PM +0200, Daniel Glöckner wrote: There are two things broken in the code generated by TCC: First of all TCC thinks it has to return the structure in memory pointed to by r0 and second it gets confused about where it stored r0 and instead reads the first float

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Recent changes segfault on Linux ARM

2013-05-01 Thread Christian Jullien
Hi Daniel ARM hardfloat: fix struct return with float/double args Fixes the case where the structure is not returned in registers. I thought it was related to ret_2float_test At least on Rpi I still have: ret_2float_test... Segmentation fault C. P.S. Compiled from a fresh git -Original

[Tinycc-devel] ARM hardfloat prolog

2013-05-01 Thread Daniel Glöckner
Hi Thomas, I saw that you used the following line to store the floating point arguments that have been passed in fpu register: o(0xED2D0A00|nf); /* save s0-s15 on stack if needed */ In my 2nd edition ARM ARM this maps to the FSTMS instruction and there is a note allowing implementations to

Re: [Tinycc-devel] ARM hardfloat prolog

2013-05-01 Thread Thomas Preud'homme
Le mercredi 1 mai 2013 16:59:25, Daniel Glöckner a écrit : Hi Thomas, I saw that you used the following line to store the floating point arguments that have been passed in fpu register: o(0xED2D0A00|nf); /* save s0-s15 on stack if needed */ In my 2nd edition ARM ARM this maps to the

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Recent changes segfault on Linux ARM

2013-05-01 Thread Daniel Glöckner
Hi Christian, On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 04:44:09PM +0200, Christian Jullien wrote: ARM hardfloat: fix struct return with float/double args Fixes the case where the structure is not returned in registers. I thought it was related to ret_2float_test At least on Rpi I still have:

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Recent changes segfault on Linux ARM

2013-05-01 Thread Christian Jullien
I simply do a ./configure Here are the lines I get gcc -o abitest-cc abitest.c ../libtcc.a -I.. -Wall -g -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -Wno-pointer-sign -Wno-sign-compare -Wno-unused-result -DCONFIG_LDDIR=\lib/arm-linux-gnueabihf\ -DCONFIG_MULTIARCHDIR=\arm-linux-gnueabihf\ -DTCC_TARGET_ARM

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc? / JIT

2013-05-01 Thread Armin Steinhoff
KHMan wrote: On 5/1/2013 7:10 PM, Armin Steinhoff wrote: Daniel Glöckner wrote: On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 09:14:58PM +0200, Marc Andre Tanner wrote: The fear of proprietary forks seems unfounded because there is already a mature BSD licensed C compiler (clang) available for people to base

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?

2013-05-01 Thread Rob Landley
On 04/30/2013 02:14:58 PM, Marc Andre Tanner wrote: On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 03:40:43PM +0200, grischka wrote: ... and since I got permission from Fabrice to use his original tcc code under a BSD license ... Actually it's a long standing offer from Fabrice, also repeated lately on the

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Do we want a BSD license for tinycc?

2013-05-01 Thread Daniel Glöckner
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 07:12:50PM +0200, Daniel Glöckner wrote: On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 07:07:34PM +0200, Thomas Preud'homme wrote: Mmmmh. Overall I'm more a (A|L)GPL guy but I choose different license for different project. For tcc I thought it could make sense since we have only libtcc

Re: [Tinycc-devel] ARM hardfloat prolog

2013-05-01 Thread Daniel Glöckner
On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 05:02:54PM +0200, Thomas Preud'homme wrote: Le mercredi 1 mai 2013 16:59:25, Daniel Glöckner a écrit : In my 2nd edition ARM ARM this maps to the FSTMS instruction and there is a note allowing implementations to keep the values in an internal representation and just