[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Small patch
From: |
Thomas Preud'homme |
Subject: |
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Small patch |
Date: |
Thu, 31 Jan 2013 15:47:34 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.2.0-4-amd64; KDE/4.8.4; x86_64; ; ) |
Le jeudi 31 janvier 2013 14:53:42, grischka a écrit :
> Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> >> Maybe we should just put bcheck.o into libtcc1.a (and thus make via
> >> the rules of lib/Makefile). Unless there is a reason why we
> >> shouldn't.
> >
> > Yes but that doesn't change the general assumption that we are compiling
> > tcc with gcc. If --cc is specified at configure time, then CFLAGS and
> > CPPFLAGS should be set when running make (make CPPFLAGS=foo CFLAGS=bar)
>
> Sure, but if you want to solve the --cc=tcc/clang problem then the
> question with using what compiler for libtcc1.a needs to be answered,
> and also whether it makes sense to treat bcheck.o separately.
Sure.
>
> Are you sure that putting an hash link to an not-existing name entry
> is the right way to deal with a malformed elf file?
No, again you're right. I got over zealous in trying to address anything that
was shown to me. I should have taken the cautious approach and later look at
all the surrounding code. Thanks for your vigilance ;)
Best regards,
Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
- Re: [Tinycc-devel] Small patch, (continued)
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Small patch, Thomas Preud'homme, 2013/01/31
Re: [Tinycc-devel] Small patch, Domingo Alvarez Duarte, 2013/01/31