Re: [Tinycc-devel] the most useless question on this list about basic c++ extensions
On 05/09/10 23:08, Thomas Preud'homme wrote: On Saturday 08 May 2010 17:05:32 mobi phil wrote: Hello, the most useless question on this list: did anybody think about adding basic C++ extensions to tcc, eventually trivial form of templates? tcc misses at least one thing for C++: exception handling. I plan to implement it but I won't start the implementation before mid june so don't be too in a hurry. :) And of course the C++ parsing must be added. As some some rules are different than in C (like priority of operators), this might require some (maybe minor) refactoring. Also, the calling convention is different so there is work to do in the symbols generation as well. That's for what I know, I may have forgotten things. Regards. C++ is a very different weird and hardly complex language compared to C. Are you saying that TCC will support it? In mainstream? As an extension? I would really prefer to not have such support..and in case, just think on object-oriented extensions, but not c++. --pancake ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Debugger for TCC
You can also use radare or radare2. But source level is not very well supported, just addr2line. On Apr 18, 2010, at 10:28 AM, grischka gris...@gmx.de wrote: Alexei wrote: Which debuggers work with TCC executables? I mean source level debugging. Thanks GDB (or any debugger that understands stabs) should work. However we have just global symbols (functions and variables) and line number info. No stack variables and no type info. So, basic but better than nothing. --- grischka ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Array BUG
this code doesnt compiles with gcc ,the bug is because tcc allows to
compile such expressions?
can you explain it better?
a.c: In function ‘main’:
a.c:8: warning: format ‘%X’ expects type ‘unsigned int’, but argument 2
has type ‘int *’
a.c:8: warning: format ‘%X’ expects type ‘unsigned int’, but argument 3
has type ‘int *’
a.c:10: error: invalid use of array with unspecified bounds
a.c:10: error: invalid use of array with unspecified bounds
a.c:10: warning: format ‘%X’ expects type ‘unsigned int’, but argument 2
has type ‘pList’
a.c:10: warning: format ‘%X’ expects type ‘unsigned int’, but argument 3
has type ‘pList’
Alexei wrote:
#include stdio.h
int arr[2];
typedef intList[];
typedef List* pList;
pList pa;
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
printf([0]=%X [1]=%X\n,arr[0],arr[1]);
pa = arr;
printf([0]=%X [1]=%X\n,pa[0],pa[1]);
}
Runtime:
[0]=4020D0 [1]=4020D4
[0]=4020D0 [1]=4020CC
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Anyone interested in a fork with custom object-oriented extensions?
Check http://live.gnome.org/Vala too i think it works fine with tinicc Míguel wrote: Hi, Jerome! Very interesting! I've been taking a look at the documentation and it seems to be similar to what I had in mind. I will take a deeper look at it. Thanks for the information! -- Miguel Angel Fraile. ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
[Tinycc-devel] cannot infer opcode suffix
I've been trying to build some .S files I generate with rcc[1] using tcc and I got some errors. Looks like opcodes like: push 20(%ebp) ; are not supported It doesnt supports labels starting with '.': .LC0_0_end_frame0: ... In GCC the labels starting with .LC# are hidden. (not exported as a symbol) Another problem I have notified is that when compiling .S files the error line number is +1 of the correct one. Here's an example: 1 push %eax 2 push -20(%ebp) ; error is here 3 mov $43, %ecx tcc reports: a.S:3: cannot infer opcode suffix It would be great if somebody can take a look on these bugs. Thanks [1] http://hg.youterm.com/rcc --pancake ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
[Tinycc-devel] patch for configure
I have spotted some issues in the configure script.
- Some undocumented configure flags
--cpu = { .. }
not all handled architectures by the configure script are
supported by the compiler
- needs to cleanup
--enable-cross
fails to build the mingw32 compiler in linux32 bits
- does it builds arm crosscompiler?
- does it builds a different .a for each cpu? or only the tcc binary?
--enable-mingw32
--enable-gprof
undocumented
--extra-cflags, ldflags, libs
those options can be taken from the environment, no need to
have multiple ways to do the same
In the patch I have removed the --extra-* flags and documented in --help
the supported configure options.
The list of supported CPUs should be reviewed. Do we really support IL, MIPS,
ALPHA?
--pancakediff --git a/configure b/configure
index 770ea70..4ddb901 100755
--- a/configure
+++ b/configure
@@ -114,12 +114,6 @@ for opt do
;;
--cc=*) cc=`echo $opt | cut -d '=' -f 2`
;;
- --extra-cflags=*) CFLAGS=${opt#--extra-cflags=}
- ;;
- --extra-ldflags=*) LDFLAGS=${opt#--extra-ldflags=}
- ;;
- --extra-libs=*) extralibs=${opt#--extra-libs=}
- ;;
--cpu=*) cpu=`echo $opt | cut -d '=' -f 2`
;;
--enable-gprof) gprof=yes
@@ -228,6 +222,10 @@ echo --source-path=PATH path of source code [$source_path]
echo --cross-prefix=PREFIXuse PREFIX for compile tools [$cross_prefix]
echo --sysroot=PREFIX prepend PREFIX to library/include paths []
echo --cc=CC use C compiler CC [$cc]
+echo --cpu=CPUcrosscompile to (x86 x86-64 c67 il armv4l powerpc mips s390 alpha) [$cpu]
+echo --enable-cross build crosscompiler for all supported platforms
+echo --enable-mingw32 build crosscompiler for mingw32 (PREFIX=i386-mingw32)
+echo --enable-gprof use gprof
echo --with-libgccuse /lib/libgcc_s.so.1 instead of libtcc1.a
echo
#echo NOTE: The object files are build at the place where configure is launched
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] The tcc-0.9.25 compile c to pe_file, report virus by some antivirus!
It's dangerous to push bins in virustotal that you know that are not virus because their heuristics makes they think that your bin that has been uploaded 100 doesn't looks like a virus but it can probably be one of them. When this happens, the antivirus companies get those signatures and a week later your binary that was not a virus is now detected as a virus. Please, don't make all tcc bins look like a virus :) On Oct 28, 2009, at 2:45 AM, Fei Liang bsch1...@gmail.com wrote: The tcc-0.9.25 compile c to pe_file, report virus by some antivirus! espcial compile the GUI mode! eg. the example/hello_win.c and other GUI c code. to test it, you could send it to http://www.virustotal.com/, it has much antivirus engine to scan your send file. ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Re: Antivirus headaches
You can try uploading the bins to www.virustotal.com to get a report from mostly all current AV. Are those bins uploaded somewhere? I know ppl from some av companies and they can review it. Signature based detection is a deprecated technique..but it's still used :( On Jun 12, 2009, at 8:22 AM, vijay mohan coder...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, I sent one of the 'infected' exes to AVG and received a curt reply that it was infected ;-(. After several attempts to find a common pattern among all random warnings, i gave up the direct approach and found a roundabout solution: 1. create the output exe with extension .txt 2. compress with upx 3. rename the file with extension .exe Now avg is happy and so am i.Hope this works for RÃdiger too. vijay ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Re: [Tinycc-devel] release 0.9.25 candidate
Would be good to send the changelog together with the release announce email. Congratulations for the release :) On May 11, 2009, at 7:18 PM, grischka gris...@gmx.de wrote: I have put together a release candidate for 0.9.25: http://repo.or.cz/w/tinycc.git which I plan to upload at savannah in a week or so. Say unless there is something important still missing. --- grischka ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
[Tinycc-devel] TCC in GSoC2k9
I have proposed TCC as a project to be developed this summer into the google summer of code of this year under the umbrella of the suckless project. http://www.suckless.org/GSoC2009 People interested contact me or g...@suckless.org Here's the text: Improve tcc We'd like to see tcc http://bellard.org/tcc/ being continued and improved. gcc is too slow and too focused on language-agnostics and particularly focused on its C++ support. We got the impression that most open source software is written in C and makes no use of C++, so that it's desirable to have an improved tcc. We are also concerned about recent attempts to implement the C front-end of gcc in C++. We believe that is a bad decision in general (due to demanding C++ as bootstrapping environment) and would like to get rid from the gcc dependency for these reasons. We'd like to see that the improved tcc is able to build all suckless projects and perhaps the modern libc replacement. ___ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
