On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 06:27:20PM +0000, Michael Ackermann via Tinycc-devel wrote: > FYI: > That is, for regression testing tcc which would have prevented me wasting > weeks > of bisecting, it is now possible: > - to regularly compile/link/boot linux-2.4 x86 > - and a complete set of ~500 packages that i can support with tcc already > (removed all direct and transitive c++ dependencies, among other patches)
Excellent work! A distro entirely built by TinyCC is really a cool thing. > Furthermore i cannot support dynamic-linking with tcc yet, because > musl-libc libc.so dynamic loader crashes when compiled/linked with tcc I had got dynamic linker of musl working on x86_64. The crashes I encountered are mostly caused by calls to libc routines in an early stage. For example, TinyCC may emit calls to memcpy() for assignments between structures, which is handled in tccgen.c: vstore(). This works most of the time, but in the early stage of a dynamic linker, all these symbols including memcpy() may have not been relocated, so such a call will jump to a dummy address and segfaults. GCC always emits a stos sequence in this case, which doesn't cause a problem. I have done some similar "optimization" for TinyCC x86_64 to eliminate the calls, see gen_struct_copy(): x86_64-gen.c. (I'm sorry my original implementation was buggy and ugly....) Another problem is the dynamic loader of musl cannot not handle a zero-sized PT_LOAD segment correctly. I've sent an upstream patch[1] for it, but there hasn't been any response. Hope these helps. > (bootstrappable.org got some patches for musl-libc for support with tcc > statically linked); > Hence i have to re-bundle what's currently maintained for tcc without > ebuilds/portage/crossdev (python needs dynamic linking and fails with tcc), > statically linked. > Once the distribution is ready and available as a stable(!) baseline i'll > summarize ISSUES, so these can be re-produced and verified against it easily > without duplicate efforts. > > Grischka, if that's ok and doesn't cause too much confusion, > i would appreciate if efforts are coordinated to avoid future regressions that > required bi-secting accross more than 100 commits; > for example release tag for 0.9.27 dates back 7 years already, and 0.9.28 > seems > not sufficiently stabilized yet. > Anyway, too i am planning to converge and re-integrate the tcc-toolchain > system profile that i got with bootstrappable.org > That is, currently i cannot publish yet, since it is too much cleanup work > remaining to finalize a complete i486-tcc-linux-musl.iso distribution to work > and test with, and i rather keep tcc synced to latest HEAD for this ;) Looking forward to the release! I'm really interested in such a distribution. Cheers, Yao Zi [1]: https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2024/09/15/1 _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
