On 30 sept. 2014, at 21:18, JFC Morfin <[email protected]> wrote: > > At 19:30 30/09/2014, Evan Langlois wrote: > >> Uhmm ... and what escape is \. supposed to be? You are confusing C escapes >> with regular expressions I think. > > This depends on compilers. In other compiler or environnement you must escape > more things. In BCC these escapes are required
Quite unlikely. Neither \* not \. have ever been seen in correct C code, Borland or else. You must be confusing C character escapes with Perl or Shell regular expressions where both . and * have a special meaning and must be escaped to match the actual character. >> Test your code with gcc please. If it compiles under gcc and then fails >> under tcc, then this is the proper list. If it won't compile under gcc, >> then perhaps stackoverflow would be a better place for help. > > My choice of TCC is to avoid GCC :-) There are declaration discrepancies and > they have used some function names I also used. If I could stay with tcc it > would be simpler. Porting old code to a modern compiler or OS is not for the faint of heart. If your C is rusty, as it shows given your questions, you are going down a rough road… If you cannot compile with gcc, first fix that. You probably defined some string functions that conflict with those of the glibc. Try using some of the gcc flags that prevent builtins or enforce strict standard conformance. You can also hide the glibc functions by defining macros before the #include lines and undefine them afterwards. Good luck! Chqrlie. _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
