On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 9:19 AM Christian Jullien <eli...@orange.fr> wrote: > > Thank you for your patch. I adopt the same process: propose a patch then, if > nobody protest after a reasonable period of time, I push it on mod. > Btw, have you a compressible set of tests for added feature? > My **very modest** role I affect to myself in this project is to test mob on > the different platforms I have access to: > - Windows 32/64 > - Linux Intel 32/64 > - Linux ARM 32/64 > > I entirely rely on standard tests (+ running my own OpenLisp project which > is an ISLISP Lisp compiler, this one includes non-regression performance > benchmarks on generated code). > > Christian
I've add a tests in TCC (101_cleanup), but I've tests only on a x86_64 linux, I will test on windows 64, linux 32 intel and try to create an ARM linux VM with qemu before pushing. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:tinycc-devel-bounces+eligis=orange...@nongnu.org] > On Behalf Of uso ewin > Sent: samedi 19 janvier 2019 14:59 > To: tinycc-devel@nongnu.org > Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Add gcc cleanup attribute support > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 1:20 PM uso ewin <uso.cosmo....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 8:10 PM uso ewin <uso.cosmo....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 8:42 PM uso ewin <uso.cosmo....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi > > > > I've fix my problem, > > > > cleanup should now work correctly on my github(I've push -f) > > > > > > > > I will now work on a new branch to remove the dual parsing. > > > > > > > > Matthias. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 6, 2019 at 7:35 PM uso ewin <uso.cosmo....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 10:27 AM uso ewin <uso.cosmo....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 3, 2019 at 6:51 PM Michael Matz <matz....@frakked.de> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 3 Jan 2019, uso ewin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> * your way of dealing with the "goto forward" problem is to > read and > > > > > > > >> remember all tokens after the goto until you find the > label (and if so > > > > > > > >> do the cleanups), rereading all these tokens afterwards. > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> This feels ugly and against the one-pass nature (and is > quadratic if you > > > > > > > >> have very many gotos); several alternatives come to mind, > though I > > > > > > > >> haven't tried any of them to see if they result in less > ugly code: e.g. > > > > > > > >> you could remember all potentially scope-exiting gotos and > check them at > > > > > > > >> scope exit (redirecting them to the cleanup and then > further to the real > > > > > > > >> destination). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, the problem with checking this at scope exit or at the > label declaration > > > > > > > > is that as TCC do single pass generation, I can't go back and > > > > > > > > regenerate the goto. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not the goto, but you can adjust where the goto goes to. > > > > > > Ok, I did not think about the possibility to do that, > > > > > > but now you say that, I will definitively test this > implementation. > > > > > > Thanks a lot for the idea. > > > > > > > You wouldn't > > > > > > > link these gotos in the label->jnext members, but in some > on-the-side > > > > > > > structure (also remembering the ultimate label they would have > to go to, > > > > > > > you could probably use the existing dynarray_* code). > > > > > > > When you reach a label definition you remove all pending gotos > for that > > > > > > > label (they don't skip over the scope exit). When you reach a > scope exit > > > > > > > all pending gotos must first go to the cleanup snippet and then > to the > > > > > > > ultimate label. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A way to solve this would be either to create a switch case > after each label > > > > > > > > that might need cleanup, or a dummy function for each goto in > need. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That latter is what you're essentially having right now: you > check if the > > > > > > > current goto in question leaves the scope, and if so emit all > the cleanup > > > > > > > code first and then the goto. I.e. for multiple gotos you > repeat the > > > > > > > cleanup code. That seems a sensible approach (the switch > approach might > > > > > > > lead to smaller code, but this shouldn't matter much here and is > more > > > > > > > complicated). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Either way, the code needed to handle that would be a lot more > complex > > > > > > > > that current implementation which is ~30line for handling the > forward goto case > > > > > > > > and that is call only in scope that contain cleanup variable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Remembering gotos would also only be done when there are pending > cleanups. > > > > > > > It might be that you're right that it would take even more code. > But I'm > > > > > > > not so sure. The remembering and reiteration over tokens really > gripes at > > > > > > > me. E.g. think about this code: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > { int a CLEANUP(foo); > > > > > > > ... goto later1; ... > > > > > > > ... goto later2; ... > > > > > > > large chunk of code > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > later1: > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > later2: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For both gotos you iterate over the large chunk of code shifting > tokens > > > > > > > back and forth between the token strings and the parser. As I > said, it's > > > > > > > a cute trick to get what you need, but there has to be a better > way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We could also declare that forward jumps within scopes needing > cleanups is > > > > > > > simply not supported in TCC (with an appropriate error message). > I would > > > > > > > prefer even that crippling of the support compared to the token > sifting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If I use Sym but keep the dual parsing that would happen only > > > > > > > > when we have a goto forward and a scope containing cleanup, > > > > > > > > would the balance switch to the advantage side ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A bit, but the dual parsing makes me really unhappy :-) Do you > have > > > > > > > cycles for trying an alternative approach to at least compare > both? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ciao, > > > > > > > Michael. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > Tinycc-devel mailing list > > > > > > > Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org > > > > > > > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, I will at first remove the Token usage for cleanup call, > because > > > > > > it's buggy and ugly. > > > > > > Then I will try to use label pointer for cleanup. > > > > > > As it should use a lot of tcc code that are still obscure to me, I > > > > > > might take time to do so. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Matthias. > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > I've got some improvement on removing token usage, > > > > > and generate call directly: > > > > > It mostly work, except when I try to call a function > > > > > with a float(or double) pointer as parameter, > > > > > When a function with a float is call, > > > > > the function receive NULL, instead of the float pointer. > > > > > Here is the code I use to generate the call > > > > > https://github.com/cosmo-ray/tcc/blob/cleanup/tccgen.c#L4755 > > > > > > > > > > Can you help me with that ? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Matthias > > > > > > new version that don't use dual parsing: > > > https://github.com/cosmo-ray/tcc/tree/cleanup2 > > > > > > any thoughts on this ? > > > > > > Thanks > > > Matthias > > > > Hi, > > > > As no one answer, can I push this on mod > > (the version without dual parsing) ? > > > > > > Matthias > > Hello again, > > I saw I had some bug in my last branch, > https://github.com/cosmo-ray/tcc/tree/cleanup2 > so I've push -f fixes on it > > I'm going to wait until Wednesday to see if someone is > against my patch, if I receive no complaint I will push on mob > > Thanks, > Matthias > > _______________________________________________ > Tinycc-devel mailing list > Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel > > > _______________________________________________ > Tinycc-devel mailing list > Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
