I've got an expression patch that I'm working on regarding structure bitfield
handling, but this came out recently and thought it might be of interest:
http://blog.regehr.org/archives/558
Regards,
Michael B. Smith
Consultant and Exchange MVP
http://TheEssentialEx
Are those semicolon strings on Windows?
-Original Message-
From: tinycc-devel-bounces+michael=theessentialexchange@nongnu.org
[mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+michael=theessentialexchange@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of grischka
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2011 7:20 PM
To: Thomas Preud'homme
Cc:
Speaking as someone who has been mostly quiet on this mailing list, but
maintaining my own fork of tcc for quite some time now, you are astoundingly
difficult to work with.
Just export the damn symbol.
-Original Message-
From: tinycc-devel-bounces+michael=theessentialexchange@nongnu
This was the very first patch that I ever wrote to tcc. Except I didn't make it
optional. I never submitted it because of that.
Being able to pack data the same way that GCC (and MSVC for that matter) does
is very useful, especially in network code. Granted that "officially" I think
this is con
>> M2c,
> What does this stand for?
My two cents. American slang.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_two_cents
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
Gcc and msvc are correct.
-Original Message-
From: tinycc-devel-bounces+michael=theessentialexchange@nongnu.org
[mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+michael=theessentialexchange@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of jiang
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 9:37 PM
To: Thomas Preud'homme
Cc: tinycc-devel@non
Darwin includes the BSD networking stack and is conformant to the Single Unix
Specification (SUSv3).
From: tinycc-devel-bounces+michael=theessentialexchange@nongnu.org
[mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+michael=theessentialexchange@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of Evan Langlois
Sent: Thursday, Octobe
I'm pretty sure this breaks Windows support.
-Original Message-
From: tinycc-devel-bounces+michael=theessentialexchange@nongnu.org
[mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+michael=theessentialexchange@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of Sergey Korshunoff
Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 11:51 AM
To: Thoma
Sergey Korshunoff
Sent: Monday, January 5, 2015 2:08 PM
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] [PATCH] cpu detection
Why? A main change of this patch is:
if (cpu=x86_64 && sizeof(long)==4)
set cpu=x86
What wrong with this on Windows?
2015-01-05 20:08 GMT+03:00, M
The way apple builds Darwin is sometimes a marvel to behold.
From: tinycc-devel-bounces+michael=theessentialexchange@nongnu.org
[mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+michael=theessentialexchange@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of Raphaël Londeix
Sent: Friday, January 9, 2015 9:37 AM
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu
What is the performance impact?
-Original Message-
From: tinycc-devel-bounces+michael=theessentialexchange@nongnu.org
[mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+michael=theessentialexchange@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of Edmund Grimley Evans
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 6:17 PM
To: tinycc-devel@
I'm not an arbiter of anything. I'm a tcc user. I use it because it's fast. I
think it's a mistake to slow it down. But that is just one person's opinion.
-Original Message-
From: tinycc-devel-bounces+michael=theessentialexchange@nongnu.org
[mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+michael=theess
I am a rare poster here – but I think your patch leads to all sorts of problems.
Please revert it/don’t commit it.
From: tinycc-devel-bounces+michael=theessentialexchange@nongnu.org
[mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+michael=theessentialexchange@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of Amine Najahi
Sent: Fri
costly for a one pass compiler.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Amine
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 5:00 AM, Michael B. Smith <
> mich...@theessentialexchange.com> wrote:
>
> > I am a rare poster here – but I think your patch leads to all sorts
> > of problems.
2010 actually, for 2.4.37.10.
https://lwn.net/Articles/403650/
But yes, the jump in size and complexity from 2.4 to 2.6 is quite dramatic.
-Original Message-
From: Tinycc-devel
[mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+michael=theessentialexchange@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of Sergey Korshunoff
Sent
Look up Hackintosh.
That being said, if tcc can run under Darwin (a *BSD derivative) it should run
under MacOS, since MacOS is built on Darwin. Darwin is supposed to be "free",
but I don't know how current it is. It's been a couple of years since I messed
with it.
-Original Message-
Fr
When last I looked, tcc didn't do any constant-folding (although perhaps that
has changed).
So, precomputing (as a constant) (IS_ID|IS_NUM) and another array which, for a
value of 'c' is the answer to "c - CH_EOF" -- should provide most (if not all)
of that optimization.
-Original Message-
Don't you think it might it be a good idea to limit the possible level of
recursion?
I don't have time to look at the C99 standard right now, but I'd be surprised
if there weren't a recommendation on this.
-Original Message-
From: Tinycc-devel
[mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+michael=thees
There are comprehensive test suites for mcpp and ucpp. Pcc uses at least a part
of the ucpp test suites.
GCC also has a set of PP test suites, as does lcc.
I think that the first two (mcpp and ucpp) make the best attempt to be
standards compliant. But you can make your own choice in that regard
His commits remind me quite strongly of how I implemented C for Burroughs Corp.
mainframes in the 1980s.
I started with a very minimal compiler written in Extended ALGOL, then made it
self-hosting in C, then extended it, step-by-step, until it was a full compiler.
I took a different tack than F
“-E” for both compilers. Then use diff (or your favorite comparison tool).
From: Tinycc-devel
[mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+michael=theessentialexchange@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of Chris Marshall
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 10:48 AM
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: [Tinycc-devel] how to deb
That’s a very interesting tool. I may have to fork it and modernize some of it,
after speaking with the originator.
From: Tinycc-devel
[mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+michael=theessentialexchange@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of Christian Jullien
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 9:02 AM
To: tinycc-devel@
Shouldn't it be DragonFlyBSD ?? :)
From: Tinycc-devel
[mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+michael=theessentialexchange@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of Christian Jullien
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2016 3:53 AM
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: [Tinycc-devel] tcc now displays the right system name with
pretends it's 'DragonFly BSD' with a space. Done in mod. Thanks.
From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of Michael B. Smith
Sent: samedi 15 octobre 2016 19:54
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org<mailto:tinycc-devel@nongnu.org>
Subje
Speaking only to my personal opinion – if you are compiling on Windows, and the
–mms-bitfields is not set and –no-ms-bitfields is not set, then you should
issue a warning to that effect.
From: Tinycc-devel
[mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+michael=theessentialexchange@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of D
So, this may a bit out of place
For various reasons, I need to start using DragonFly BSD for a few projects in
the new year. I'd be thankful if you (or any other users of this list) can
point me to any details regarding the *BSD problems and/or the static problems?
Thanks.
Regards,
Michael
How many times does foo overflow requiring a cache flush?
From: Tinycc-devel
[mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+michael=theessentialexchange@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of David Mertens
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 12:59 AM
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Huge swings in cache
Can 0.9.26 build mob?
From: Tinycc-devel
[mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+michael=theessentialexchange@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of Christian Jullien
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 2:15 PM
To: 'avih'; tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Push reproducible builds script? (for window
You funny.
I've still got hundreds of thousands of lines of C in K&R C. In production.
Supporting major applications.
You are obviously one of those people who thinks that COBOL is ancient and
unused, aren't you?
Because I've got millions of production LOC in COBOL.
No offense, but I don't th
[mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+michael=theessentialexchange@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of KHMan
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 10:18 PM
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Using tinycc for full source bootstrapping
On 9/27/2017 9:54 AM, Michael B. Smith wrote:
> You funny.
>
&g
Great work. Thanks to all of you who have committed!
I have some questions:
[1] Other than _Complex/_Imaginary (which C11 now identifies as "optional")
does anyone have a clear view of what is missing to be c99 compliant? (I've
read the standard and I can build a basic test suite, but I just wo
tcc.h line 153 should be:
#if defined _WIN32 && defined TCC_TARGET_PE
Sorry. I don't have git set up yet. Working on it.
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
9, 2017 2:18 AM, Michael B. Smith
mailto:mich...@smithcons.com>> wrote:
tcc.h line 153 should be:
#if defined _WIN32 && defined TCC_TARGET_PE
Sorry. I don’t have git set up yet. Working on it.
___
Tinycc-devel mailing list
Tinycc-devel@n
Thank you for the information.
Where is the internals document? ☺
From: avih [mailto:avih...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2017 4:09 AM
To: Michael B. Smith; tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] a patch
It's not a matter of validity.
TCC_TARGET_PE is defined
It's in 6.7.5.3/7 in C99 for 'static'.
It's in 6.7.3/5 in C99 for 'const'.
Using 'static' seems to have two implied contracts:
[1] don't allow NULL parameters
[2] verify, when possible, that the passed array has AT LEAST the number of
elements defined
Using 'const' has an implied contract:
[3
discussion isn't really about tcc per se.
-Original Message-
From: Tinycc-devel
[mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+michael=theessentialexchange@nongnu.org] On
Behalf Of Michael Matz
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2017 8:44 AM
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] C99 static array
u.org] On
Behalf Of Michael Matz
Sent: Saturday, December 23, 2017 8:27 AM
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] TCC version 0.9.27 is out
Hi,
On Mon, 18 Dec 2017, Michael B. Smith wrote:
> [1] Other than _Complex/_Imaginary (which C11 now identifies as
> "optional&quo
28, 2017 9:49 AM
To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] C99 static array indices in function args
On Tue, 26 Dec 2017 23:21:15 +
"Michael B. Smith" wrote:
> > > 'restrict' has several defined (not just implied) contracts. This should
>
38 matches
Mail list logo
