On 2024-11-21 17:13:56 +0100, grischka via Tinycc-devel wrote:
> On 11/21/24 14:39, Domingo Alvarez Duarte wrote:
> > Thanks fo reply !
> >
> > Again even if it's valid C code it's clear that it has several drawbacks
> > pointed so far by other comments on this thread and if there is a more
> > cl
On 11/21/24 14:39, Domingo Alvarez Duarte wrote:
Thanks fo reply !
Again even if it's valid C code it's clear that it has several drawbacks
pointed so far by other comments on this thread and if there is a more
clean/clear/elegant way to express it why not talk/try it out ?
For sure the drawba
Domingo Alvarez Duarte wrote in
:
|Thanks fo reply !
|
|Again even if it's valid C code it's clear that it has several drawbacks
|pointed so far by other comments on this thread and if there is a more
|clean/clear/elegant way to express it why not talk/try it out ?
Yes. After having used
Thanks fo reply !
Again even if it's valid C code it's clear that it has several drawbacks
pointed so far by other comments on this thread and if there is a more
clean/clear/elegant way to express it why not talk/try it out ?
Cheers !
On 21/11/24 14:36, avih via Tinycc-devel wrote:
Fow what
I can't speak for the maintainers of tcc (which I'm not), but I agree with the
current state that adding the compiler flag is enough, and if more compilers
need it, then it would be very simple to change "configure" to support it, e.g.
replace:
if test "$cc_name" = "clang"; then
...
fi
with:
Fow what it's worth, when compiling with clang, the "configure" script adds to
the compiler flag:
-Wno-string-plus-int
exactly to suppress this warning, because it's stupid, and it's valid C code,
and the developers of tcc know that string + int is adding to the pointer and
not to the number i
On 2024-11-21 10:25:41 +0100, Domingo Alvarez Duarte wrote:
> After Vicent Lefevre message I looked again at it and did the experimental
> change sown bellow, the original code is a bit problematic because it has
> "9" hardcoded in "#define __TINYC__ 9%.2s\n" and was using a substring of
> "0.9.28r
Changed again to incorporate good suggestions:
#define TCC_VERSION_MAJOR "0"
#define TCC_VERSION_SUB "9"
#define TCC_VERSION_MINOR "28"
#define TCC_VERSION_SUFFIX "rc"
#define TCC_VERSION TCC_VERSION_MAJOR "." TCC_VERSION_SUB "."
TCC_VERSION_MINOR TCC_VERSION_SUFFIX
cstr_prin
On 2024-11-21 11:33:21 +0100, Domingo Alvarez Duarte wrote:
> I changed it to:
>
>
>
> #define TCC_VERSION_MAJOR "0"
> #define TCC_VERSION_SUB "9"
> #define TCC_VERSION_MINOR "28"
This is often called MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH or MAJOR.MINOR.MICRO, but
in the case of tinycc, the "9" isn't really mi
Hello ian !
You've got the idea and thanks for improving it !
On 21/11/24 11:04, ian wrote:
Hi
#define TCC_VERSION_MAJOR "0.9."🤣
*0* is the major version, 9 is a subversion, 28 is the minor version.
If you wanna have clear code :
#define TCC_VERSION_MAJOR "0"
#define TCC_VERSION_SUB ".9"
#d
I changed it to:
#define TCC_VERSION_MAJOR "0"
#define TCC_VERSION_SUB "9"
#define TCC_VERSION_MINOR "28"
#define TCC_RELEASE_CANDIDATE "rc"
#define TCC_VERSION TCC_VERSION_MAJOR "." TCC_VERSION_SUB "."
TCC_VERSION_MINOR TCC_RELEASE_CANDIDATE
cstr_printf(cs, "#define __TINYC_
Hi
#define TCC_VERSION_MAJOR "0.9."🤣
*0* is the major version, 9 is a subversion, 28 is the minor version.
If you wanna have clear code :
#define TCC_VERSION_MAJOR "0"
#define TCC_VERSION_SUB ".9"
#define TCC_VERSION_MINOR ".28"
#define TCC_RELEASE_CANDIDATE "rc"
#define TCC_VERSION TCC_VERSION
After Vicent Lefevre message I looked again at it and did the
experimental change sown bellow, the original code is a bit problematic
because it has "9" hardcoded in "#define __TINYC__ 9%.2s\n" and was
using a substring of "0.9.28rc", not the best solution but a bit more
clear in my opinion.
On 2024-11-20 13:01:44 +0100, Domingo Alvarez Duarte wrote:
> The fact that tinycc is handling this issue doesn't mean that it's doing it
> properly.
The code is correct. But perhaps adding a cast like
cstr_printf(cs, "#define __TINYC__ 9%.2s\n", TCC_VERSION + 4);
to
cstr_printf(cs, "#defin
The fact that tinycc is handling this issue doesn't mean that it's doing
it properly.
On 20/11/24 12:56, Yao Zi via Tinycc-devel wrote:
echo "__TINYC__" | ./tcc -E -xc -
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/
On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 12:15:34PM +0100, Domingo Alvarez Duarte wrote:
> While testing building tinycc with several compilers I'm getting this
> warning from "zig cc" (clang 18):
>
>
>
> tccpp.c:3589:62: warning: adding 'int' to a string does not append to the
> string [-Wstring-plus-int]
>
While testing building tinycc with several compilers I'm getting this
warning from "zig cc" (clang 18):
tccpp.c:3589:62: warning: adding 'int' to a string does not append to
the string [-Wstring-plus-int]
 3589 | cstr_printf(cs, "#define __TINYC__ 9%.2s\n", TCC_VERSION + 4);
 |
17 matches
Mail list logo
