[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Tinycc-devel] Unsubscribe
From: |
Norman Winer |
Subject: |
[Tinycc-devel] Unsubscribe |
Date: |
Tue, 6 Sep 2005 06:45:04 -0700 (PDT) |
Unsubscribe
end
--- address@hidden wrote:
> Send Tinycc-devel mailing list submissions to
> address@hidden
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
> visit
>
>
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body
> 'help' to
> address@hidden
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> address@hidden
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it
> is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Tinycc-devel digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Some feedback (Ivan Popov)
> 2. Re: Fwd: Bug#322913: tcc: _Bool exists but
> doesn't comply
> with C99 (Romain Francoise)
> 3. Re: Some feedback (Fabrice Bellard)
> 4. Re: [patch] Segmentation fault compiling
> broken 1-liner
> (Fabrice Bellard)
> 5. CVS compilation is broken (Marcelo Jimenez)
> 6. Re: tcc 0.9.23 shift generation bug (Fabrice
> Bellard)
> 7. make test fails with gcc 4 (Marcelo Jimenez)
> 8. Re: tcc 0.9.23 shift generation bug (Zdenek
> Pavlas)
> 9. tcctest.c fails on Windows (Sven Oliver Moll)
> 10. Re: tcctest.c fails on Windows (David A.
> Wheeler)
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2005 16:18:36 +0200
> From: Ivan Popov <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Some feedback
> To: address@hidden
> Message-ID:
>
<address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 09:16:14PM -0700, Daniel P.
> Stasinski wrote:
> > Make it a compile time option that rather than
> exec the code by
> > jumping to it in memory, instead write it to a tmp
> file, execlp() it,
> > delete the tmp file and return the status.
>
> I'd rather do the decision at runtime, if that is at
> all possible,
> as execution in memory is not only faster / more
> efficient / less error prone
> but also works on systems without an elf exec
> loader.
>
> My 2c,
> --
> Ivan
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2005 19:59:10 +0200
> From: Romain Francoise <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Fwd: Bug#322913: tcc:
> _Bool exists but
> doesn't comply with C99
> To: address@hidden
> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Marcelo Jimenez <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Index: tcc.c
> >
>
===================================================================
> > RCS file: /cvsroot/tinycc/tinycc/tcc.c,v
> > retrieving revision 1.172
> > diff -u -r1.172 tcc.c
> > --- tcc.c 17 Jun 2005 22:05:58 -0000 1.172
> > +++ tcc.c 30 Aug 2005 05:23:36 -0000
> > @@ -5822,6 +5822,7 @@
> > /* we handle char/short/etc... with
> generic code */
> > if (dbt != (VT_INT | VT_UNSIGNED) &&
> > dbt != (VT_LLONG | VT_UNSIGNED)
> &&
> > + dbt != VT_BOOL &&
> > dbt != VT_LLONG)
> > dbt = VT_INT;
> > if (c) {
> > @@ -5836,6 +5837,10 @@
> > case VT_DOUBLE: vtop->c.ui =
> (unsigned
> > int)vtop->c.d; break;
> > case VT_LDOUBLE: vtop->c.ui =
> (unsigned
> > int)vtop->c.d; break;
> > }
> > + break;
> > + case VT_BOOL:
> > + vpushi(0);
> > + gen_op(TOK_NE);
> > break;
> > default:
> > /* int case */
>
> Thanks, that does the trick indeed.
>
> --
> ,''`.
> : :' : Romain Francoise
> <address@hidden>
> `. `' http://people.debian.org/~rfrancoise/
> `-
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 20:17:11 +0200
> From: Fabrice Bellard <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Some feedback
> To: address@hidden
> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii;
> format=flowed
>
> Filip Navara wrote:
> > Daniel P. Stasinski wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/1/05, Marcelo Jimenez
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Daniel, did you see the patch I wrote about
> exec-shield? I have FC4
> >>> and -run does not segfault. Try as root:
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Ok, I have an idea. Please tell me if it's a bad
> idea but it will get
> >> the -run option to work regardless of
> exec-shield. I tested it with a
> >> quick dirty proof of concept hack.
> >>
> >> Make it a compile time option that rather than
> exec the code by
> >> jumping to it in memory, instead write it to a
> tmp file, execlp() it,
> >> delete the tmp file and return the status.
> >>
> >>
> > Isn't just pure "mprotect" usable?
>
> Yes it is. I am commiting a small patch for that...
>
> Fabrice.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 23:08:52 +0200
> From: Fabrice Bellard <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] [patch] Segmentation
> fault compiling
> broken 1-liner
> To: address@hidden
> Message-ID: <address@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii;
> format=flowed
>
> Marcelo Jimenez wrote:
> > On 8/31/05, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> >>>The missing () on main does however make it very
> invalid C.
> >>
> >>That's just a syntax violation.
>
=== message truncated ===
905-471-6659 voice
905-471-8428 fax
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- [Tinycc-devel] Unsubscribe,
Norman Winer <=