2013/8/26 Thomas Preud'homme <[email protected]>: > Le lundi 26 août 2013 22:50:33 Jens Nyberg a écrit : >> 2013/8/26 Thomas Preud'homme <[email protected]>: >> > Le lundi 26 août 2013 13:07:37 Jens Nyberg a écrit : >> >> Hi! >> >> >> >> I think implementing .set and .equ which are both functionally >> >> equivalent would be a easy task unless someone is already working on >> >> this? >> >> >> >> If I implement it myself I assume what they do would be to define a >> >> symbol with a value and that's it. Or am I missing something? >> >> >> >> And also, there is no reason for why these are not supported besides >> >> lack of time? >> > >> > As most (all?) FLOSS project, there is difinitely a lack of time / >> > manpower to work on TinyCC. The number of feature request and bug report >> > is currently increasing and there seem to be no progress so far. There is >> > a few bugs and improvement I'd like to work on myself for a long time but >> > don't have time to work on for various reason. >> > >> > If you feel you can do it then please go ahead and feel free to ask >> > questions. Help is more than welcome :) >> >> I'll see what I can do. =) I've actually spent a couple of weeks now >> almost every day just trying to straighten up the whole tcc codebase >> for a project of mine where I've removed all use of global variables >> (most of them ended up in the tcc_state struct which in turn is passed >> around). > > That's great news. Would the result allow to compile several program in > parallel? If yes, the contribution could be interesting. >
Yes I think in theory it could but that was not the reason I did it. I did it because I prefer as few states as possible in my code. Also when I did this I removed so much code that I knew I didn't need, like arm, coff, pe, windows and -run support and a whole lot of other stuff so I won't be able to backport any of those things to tcc. It requires a lot of work but all I can say is that if someone wants to do it for tcc it is possible but the changeset would include probably more than 2000 lines of code. >> It was one hell of a job and I've now reached the point where >> I am actually trying to compile another project of mine using it and >> this is where I noticed these missing directives. The point of the >> whole project is to create a non-posix freestanding i386/x86 compiler >> so most changes I've done does not apply to tcc directly but the ones >> that do (like this one) will be shared back to the community after >> being ported back to tcc properly. > > Great, thanks :) > > Thomas _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
