Hi Stephan Beal
> That is not valid logic for justifying the silencing of a fatal code condition
But a condition is not fatal
>> What a solution can be:
What you can say about a right way?
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://li
On Oct 28, 2015 23:46, "Sergey Korshunoff" wrote:
>
> Hi Michael Matz
>
> > No, please keep the message
> That was a quick fix for the problem.
One does not simply "quick-fix" a globally shared source repo.
> > So, please revert.
> Revert is not a solition. If gcc don't complain, than a tcc must
On 10/29/2015 12:27 AM, Sergey Korshunoff wrote:
Hi Christian Jullien!
I'm really afraid to see discussion on about to optimize Cfront tcc backend!
There is no such discussion. But Basile and you trying to say tcc is
not a real compiler, a tcc can not be used to perform some task. Only
because
Ooops! Don't misunderstand me. No doubt to me, tcc *IS* a real C compiler
and, even it does not have all optimization phases of its competitor, it
does not behaves too bad.
I love its compilation speed and, with reasonable efforts, its code is
understandable.
My only concern is to see efforts
Hi Christian Jullien!
> I'm really afraid to see discussion on about to optimize Cfront tcc backend!
There is no such discussion. But Basile and you trying to say tcc is
not a real compiler, a tcc can not be used to perform some task. Only
because it is not a optimizer compiler. This is not true. W
Hi Michael Matz
> No, please keep the message
That was a quick fix for the problem.
> So, please revert.
Revert is not a solition. If gcc don't complain, than a tcc must not
complain too.
What a solution can be:
* a some switch to disable this error message (a simple solution)
How to name it
Hi,
On Sun, 25 Oct 2015, Sergey Korshunoff wrote:
> Hi! Commented out a tcc_error_noabort("'%s' defined twice"... on mob
> gcc-3.4.6 don't give such error by default
> example file1.c
> char __version_303_;
> void func1() {}
> example file2.c
> char __version_303_;
> void
