|
From: | Christian JULLIEN |
Subject: | [Tinycc-devel] RE :Re: Recent change breaks test3 on RPi |
Date: | Fri, 7 Feb 2014 16:52:14 +0100 (CET) |
----- Message d'origine -----
De : "Thomas Preud'homme" <address@hidden>
Date ven. 07/02/2014 15:33 (GMT +01:00)
À : "address@hidden" <address@hidden>
Objet : Re: [Tinycc-devel] Recent change breaks test3 on RPi
Le mercredi 5 février 2014, 17:58:11 Thomas Preud'homme a écrit :
> Le mercredi 5 février 2014, 10:55:44 Daniel Glöckner a écrit :
> > Hi Thomas,
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 02:15:07PM +0800, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
> > > I would like to fix this but I need to see first why tcc and gcc differ.
> > > Daniel, if you read this, can you explain me why gcc seems to use a
> > > signed
> > > char while tcc uses an unsigned char?
> >
> > it seems char, signed char, and unsigned char are distinct types in C.
> > With GCC neither unsigned char nor signed char is compatible with char.
>
> Oh I see. Well, there is already a VT_SIGNED in tcc.h and it isn't much
> used. It could serve just that purpose.
I changed VT_SIGNED in VT_DEFSIGN to indicate if the signed used is the
default one or one that was explicitely given. This way I can see if an
unsigned char is unsigned because of no signeness specifier or because it was
declared as unsigned char.
Now arm runs the full test suite without any error with both libgcc and
libtcc, yeah \o/
I noticed while testing the code that there is 2 errors on i386 with the
current mob tcc, not due to latest commits. I'd like to debug this and then
launch a call for testing for tcc 0.9.27 but I'm not well versed in x86 these
days so if anybody want to try, please do.
Best regards,
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Tinycc-devel mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |