Re: [Tinycc-devel] Status for 0.9.27

[Christian Jullien]

Hi Michael,

I've found two different issues when trying tcc on FreeBSD x86 and x86_64.
- On x86 it does not find gcc C lib which may not be difficult to fix, in
memory compilation seem to work.
- On x86_64 it also have the gcc lib issue + it makes core dump when reading
elf section.

I didn't investigate more than that as I know about nothing about ELF
format.

C.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tinycc-devel [mailto:address@hidden
On Behalf Of Michael B. Smith
Sent: jeudi 24 novembre 2016 00:58
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Status for 0.9.27

So, this may a bit out of place....

For various reasons, I need to start using DragonFly BSD for a few projects
in the new year. I'd be thankful if you (or any other users of this list)
can point me to any details regarding the *BSD problems and/or the static
problems?

Thanks.

Regards,
Michael B.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tinycc-devel
[mailto:address@hidden On
Behalf Of grischka
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2016 12:19 PM
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Status for 0.9.27

Christian Jullien wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
>  
> 
> tcc status has never been clear to me. I mean, we don't really what 
> has been tested or not.

Honorable attempt, however I think peoples' mileage may vary as to what
"works" means.  Some may not consider tcc as a working compiler at all, and
maybe they're right.

I'd say: It does something, on linux and windows, best on i386 but also on
x86_64.  From how the sources look also some arm variants seem to be
supported, as well as aarch64 since lately.  FreeBSD has unresolved linker
problems, as well as -static on all platforms since well, forever.
For Apple it lacks a MACHO backend.  So that is pretty much the same as you
already noticed.

At least we can say that it does more than last release.

--- grischka


> For example, who knows the status of FreeBSD on Aarch64?
> 
> It is generally admitted that tcc 'globally' works well on Linux and 
> Windows. If we go further and ask the same question with shared V.S.
> static it is less clear. Is Aarch64 really supported? How has it been
tested.
> 
> Can we really say that tcc works on Apple as it cannot produce
executables?
> 
>  
> 
> On the other hand we know that it does not fully work on *BSD
> (x86/x86_64)
> 
>  
> 
> IMHO we should have better status based on tests made.
> 
>  
> 
> I'm ready to run standard regression tests and validate static 
> executables with my Lisp non-regression test on:
> 
> -          arm Linux
> 
> -          aarch64 Linux
> 
> -          x86 Windows
> 
> -          x86_64 Windows
> 
>  
> 
> We should have somewhere a spreadsheet with all features tcc supports 
> we will fill for different OS/processor
> 
>  
> 
> Wdyt?
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tinycc-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel


_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel

_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel