On Friday 18 May 2007 11:15 am, Rainer Machne wrote: > Hi Rob, > > first: thanks for your help and sorry for the spam filter problems - see > below for the response of our sysadmins. > > Temporarily, I just removed the requirement for multiple TCC states in > our program, so I don't urgently need it anymore. I just compile the > whole thing all together again, even though just one tiny function > changes and it would be more elegant to keep also the compiled functions > modular ... but we can live with that for the moment. > > >> This also doesn't work for me, although I get different errors: > >> > >> > tcc -L. libtcc_test.c -ltcc1 > >> tcc: file '/usr/lib32/crt1.o' not found > >> tcc: file '/usr/lib32/crti.o' not found > > > > Sigh. -L is supposed to add a library, not replace the existing ones. > > (Ummm... lib32? You're running it on x86-64?) > > No, actually i686. The machine is in principle 64 bit, but was by > mistake set up for 32 bit (the only 32bit we currently have). Maybe this > causes confusion? (in our network, it's the only well-maintained 32 > architecture we have, so i am using tcc there - as i didn't want to go > through the process of compiling all libraries i need for my project > with -m32 on my x86-64).
I'd like to make tcc run on an x86-64 host, which doesn't sound too difficult. I'd also like to make it produce x86-64 output which is noticeably more work. > Actually, crt1.o and crti.o are in /usr/lib, but I get the same error > even when explicitly including -L/usr/lib in above command ... ? Ordering constraints, possibly. > (please also note that i am a trained biologist, and learning-by-doing > about compilation and linking stuff just now) I've not only tracked lots of this stuff down over the years but I encoded rather a lot of it into a wrapper script for gcc which I should really clean up at some point. Both gcc and tcc have approximately the same linking requirements... http://landley.net/hg/firmware?f=6b6822893f99;file=sources/toys/gcc-uClibc.c > >> However, gcc does it, when I also link to ?dynamic linker/loader? with > >> -ldl and not to libtcc1 but to libtcc with > >> > >> > gcc -L. libtcc_test.c -ldl -ltcc > > > > I thought the point of the libc.so linker script was to link > > to -ldl "AS_NEEDED". What distro are you using? > > If that helps you, I get the following error without -ldl: > > ./libtcc.a(libtcc.o): In function `resolve_sym': > .../.../tinycc-rl-1.0.0/tcc.h:885: undefined reference to `dlsym' > ./libtcc.a(libtcc.o): In function `tcc_add_file_internal': > .../.../tinycc-rl-1.0.0/tcc.c:9079: undefined reference to `dlopen' > collect2: ld returned 1 exit status > Exit 1 *shrug* Ok. > >> However, as I get all > >> your other emails to the list, I think it might have been some temporary > >> bug in their email filter. ?? > > > > You get emails sent by the list's email server because that's coming from a > > different IP address. > > I never got your first reply, neither from you nor from the email list. > I got all other email list emails since and before then. The first email I cc'd you, so I don't think the list sent you a copy. (The mailserver can be configured not to send copies to people who are cc'd. I have no control over this, I didn't set up the list.) The others, I sent _just_ to the list. This one I'm cc'ing you again, so who knows if you'll get it. :) > > Filtering by mailserver's IP address does not reliably work. It generates > > significant false positives. My response to these false positives is "oh > > well, I didn't have anything of burning importance to say to you anyway, I'm > > going to go off and do other things". If your mail server sticks its fingers > > in its ears when I speak in an attempt to shield you from spam I'm not > > sending, this is not my problem. > > > > Our university sysadmins say they are very sorry and think that this > might have happened during a very short period on that day when they had > messed up some network mask/ip address ... settings in their spam > filter, so that a large range of IP addresses was temporarily blocked. > .... grrr. We'll see. > Personally, i'd prefer them not do centralized spam filtering at all - *shrug* It works quite well for gmail. Rob _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
