So far, I am not very familiar with the development process usedhere. Could you please assign me a ramp-up task? So that I could warm myself quickly. Also, how could I set up my own development environment?
I am now a software developer in Sybase. In my job, I work on develop, bug fixing for Sybase Replication Server which is completely written in C. So far I have over 5 years of C programming experiences. I would like to contribute my effort to TCC. Thanks. -jl 2008/11/22 Masha Rabinovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I do not have. > > I would be nice if you will add some. > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Jerry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Do you have enough regression test cases available? If not, I would like >> to add some. >> jl >> >> >> 2008/11/21 Masha Rabinovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>> The was not 1000000000 in the program I am trying to compile with tcc, >>> but there was pointer + some small value in constant expression. the only >>> reason I put 1000000000 in test case was to see in output a value different >>> from regular pointer to be sure the additional is performed. >>> >>> Something like >>> >>> ==== >>> >>> char hello[]="hello"; >>> char*hello10=hello+10; >>> >>> ==== >>> >>> were a more correct testcase for constant pointer ariphmetic. >>> >>> Sorry for that. >>> >>> And thank you for your work! >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Daniel Glöckner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 07:42:59PM +0100, Masha Rabinovich wrote: >>>> > main ? 0 : 1, // function pointer is always true >>>> >>>> Done. >>>> >>>> > (int)main + (int)1e9, // be sure the result is above 1.000.000.000 >>>> >>>> I removed the error message again. It was wrong in several ways. >>>> >>>> There is no need for the expression to evaluate to a value > 1000000000. >>>> (int)main may be negative. >>>> >>>> Actually I'm not convinced that these two casts must be supported >>>> outside >>>> of functions. Section 6.6 in C99 draft N869 does not talk about casting >>>> address constants to integers. It does allow implemetations to accept >>>> other constant expressions, though. >>>> >>>> > (int)main / 2, // here must be compile-time error, tcc can compile it >>>> > sin(1) ? 0 : 1, // here must be compile-time error, tcc can compile >>>> it >>>> >>>> I don't think we should add checks for all variants of invalid code. >>>> IMHO the main focus should be on correctly compiling valid code. >>>> Otherwise we'll soon have a not so tiny TinyCC. >>>> >>>> Daniel >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Tinycc-devel mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Tinycc-devel mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Best Regards >> ----------- >> Jerry Luo >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tinycc-devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Tinycc-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel > > -- Best Regards ----------- Jerry Luo
_______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
