N'morning.
grischka wrote in
<6105b650.90...@gmx.de>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
|> grischka wrote in
|> <6102f8d1.40...@gmx.de>:
|>|Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
|>|> The enum adds quite a bit on top of it; the addition of
|>|> set_W_flag() is, hmm, not nice, but i hope the current approach is
Christian JULLIEN wrote:
On macOS M1 (not yet fixed with long double), the latest commit
stalls on test 60
...60_errors_and_warnings ;; runs forever
Should work now.
I did set the TCC_USING_DOUBLE_FOR_LDOUBLE for macho-arm64 instead
which might or might not have some effect.
Thanks,
---
Same issue with Linux arm (RPi)
Le :01 août 2021 à 10:54 (GMT +02:00)
De :"Christian JULLIEN" eli...@orange.fr
À :"tinycc-devel@nongnu.org" tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Objet :Re: [Tinycc-devel] -Werror=X (but ugly)
On macOS M1 (not yet fixed with long double), the latest c
On macOS M1 (not yet fixed with long double), the latest commit stalls on test
60
...60_errors_and_warnings ;; runs forever
Le :31 juillet 2021 à 22:45 (GMT +02:00)
De :"grischka" gris...@gmx.de
À :"tinycc-devel@nongnu.org" tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Objet :Re: [Tinycc-devel]
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
grischka wrote in
<6102f8d1.40...@gmx.de>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
|> The enum adds quite a bit on top of it; the addition of
|> set_W_flag() is, hmm, not nice, but i hope the current approach is
|> not too heavy.
|
|Maybe not heavy really but unnecessary, in
grischka wrote in
<6102f8d1.40...@gmx.de>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
|> The enum adds quite a bit on top of it; the addition of
|> set_W_flag() is, hmm, not nice, but i hope the current approach is
|> not too heavy.
|
|Maybe not heavy really but unnecessary, in quite some aspects.
|One of
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
The enum adds quite a bit on top of it; the addition of
set_W_flag() is, hmm, not nice, but i hope the current approach is
not too heavy.
Maybe not heavy really but unnecessary, in quite some aspects.
One of them that after all tinycc currently does have only
2 warnings
Hello.
grischka wrote in
<61013ba4.4000...@gmx.de>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
|>| gcc -Wwrite-strings -Werror=discarded-qualifiers
|>
|> Hm. Well then this part is not compatible it seems.
|
|Not compatible and cannot work:
|
| const char *xxx = "123"; /* no warning or error
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
| gcc -Wwrite-strings -Werror=discarded-qualifiers
Hm. Well then this part is not compatible it seems.
Not compatible and cannot work:
const char *xxx = "123"; /* no warning or error here */
foo(); /* nobody said we would want this to stop */
$ tcc
grischka wrote in
<60ff3c86.6020...@gmx.de>:
|Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
...
|> I would like to have it, but the implementation is so ugly!
|
|Classic dilemma ...
Oooh .. yes.
...
|> Also, things like write-strings play with
|
|What "things like write-strings"? There is only
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
Hello!
I would like to have it, but the implementation is so ugly!
Classic dilemma ...
My "natural" thought would be to have flag carriers, and simply
use bit 1 for "warn" and bit 2 for "error out", but that needs
quite some work.
Sure. Natural and simple idea but
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
<20210726142524.soil2%stef...@sdaoden.eu>:
|+ (subt = 1, !strncmp(optarg, "no-error",
|+(uintptr_t)(sub - optarg &&
|+set_flag(s, options_Werror, ++sub) == 0) {
Ah merde, of course this
12 matches
Mail list logo
