Le dimanche 01 juin 2014, 00:04:27 mobi phil a écrit :
Why tinyCC didn't use a hierarchical code review, with people who
follows the project and have a good overview (Thomas Preud'homme,
grischka, Daniel Glöckner for ARM) ?
Thanks,
I also got dizzy by those useless patches.
Hi,
On Sun, 22 Jun 2014, David Mertens wrote:
Sorry, I decided to give more than 20 hours for folks to weigh in, and then
time got away from me. I'll revert jiang's changes with a push some time
around June 23 (tomorrow), 9:00PM New York time.
By the way, if the instructions at
Hi,
Mob is mob. And there is master there.
By the way, if the instructions at http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git are
supposed to be the community rules, jiang was not really breaking any. We
should probably work with a different approach. I suggest that individuals
who have ideas should do
Sorry, I decided to give more than 20 hours for folks to weigh in, and then
time got away from me. I'll revert jiang's changes with a push some time
around June 23 (tomorrow), 9:00PM New York time.
By the way, if the instructions at http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git are
supposed to be the community
Hi,
On Behalf Of jiang
index 22a8278..2fd4614 100644
@@ -1655,6 +1655,15 @@ void bitfield_test(void)
else
printf(st1.f2 != -1\n);
+/* XXX: gcc bug
My logic is:
If it is a bug, why we should follow a wrong way?
Aidan Dodds wrote: It looks like you are trying to
jiang wrote:
/* bitfield store handling */
+SValue tmp;
+tmp = vtop[0];
[...]
+vtop--;
+vpushv(tmp);
This is still not a solution. See
#include stdio.h
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
struct {
unsigned a:9, b:5, c:7;
This is my modified.
I tried to modify the Makefile, but my limited level, think of ways to
modify later.
--- tccgen.c
---
index 7906ccf..4f2a02c 100644
@@ -2562,6 +2562,8 @@ ST_FUNC void vstore(void)
/* leave source on
On 20/06/2014 06:58, jiang wrote:
printf(%d %d %d %d %d\n,
+ st1.f2, st1.f3, st1.f4, st1.f5);
Am i being stupid, or do you specify 5 format specifiers with only 4
arguments?!
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
I see now that must be intentional, but that's also very dangerous.
It looks like you are trying to reproduce a gcc bug, why not make that
optional? Perhaps proposing a compatibility mode if it would be a useful
thing to have.
Even if its sensible, you should really control what garbage data
And now lifenjoiner has jumped in, adding patches without discussion.
Can we forcibly revert tcc's mob branch at http://repo.or.cz/ back to
grishka's commit from 4-17 and cherry pick grishka's and Thomas' commits
that were made thereafter? This will cause confusion for anybody who has
pulled
jiangint main()
http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git/commitdiff/e5e7f488e22190f893152c0b2f73e9ba499c4169
- causes regression. Test case:
struct { unsigned a:9, b:7, c:5; } s;
s.a = s.b = s.c = 3;
printf(%d / %d / %d\n, s.a, s.b, s.c);
I was on a month to join tinycc-devel. There are many rules I do not
know, git commands also miss a beat, causing some useless patch, I hope
you forgive me!
jiang
I also got dizzy by those useless patches.
Also got lost if the patches related to global variables were/are
going to be
Why tinyCC didn't use a hierarchical code review, with people who
follows the project and have a good overview (Thomas Preud'homme,
grischka, Daniel Glöckner for ARM) ?
Thanks,
I also got dizzy by those useless patches.
Also got lost if the patches related to global variables were/are
I follow your advice, has established an account at github. But you can
not call Thomas Preud'homme,
grischka, Daniel Glöckner, who came back, they did not push the dozens
of days! I feel I contribute nobody seriously.
I need them to show me the error.
jiang
The troll alarm went off really hard. I would never trust this guys
patches, but, hey, that's just me... hopefully the breaking patches are
moved to another repo so that I can more easily ignore any pull requests :)
Anyone else working on TCC right now?
-Sia
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:14 PM,
Sia Lang wrote:
The troll alarm went off really hard. I would never trust this guys
patches, but, hey, that's just me... hopefully the breaking patches are
moved to another repo so that I can more easily ignore any pull requests :)
Anyone else working on TCC right now?
-Sia
I think to be
Hello everyone! My English is not very good! I very much hope to work
together with you. I want God to guarantee, I push is not low quality code
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Hey jiang,
The simplest way to ensure that you don't push low-quality code is to work
with your own repository, for example, on github. When you think you have
something you would like to contribute, then email this list and ask for a
review. Provide a link to your hosted repo and explain what
We've come to depend on TCC as an embedded C compiler and are quite frankly
a bit discouraged by the latest developments.
The home page says bellard is no longer working on tcc, but there is
fortunately some traffic in the git repo
However, I have a couple of concerns:
1. Lately, a large amount
( a large amount of very low quality patches from jiang has been pushed)
say to you very low quality patch I protest!!!
Jiang
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
20 matches
Mail list logo
