[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Add support of musl-libc to tinycc

From: Kamil Rytarowski
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Add support of musl-libc to tinycc
Date: Sat, 13 May 2017 03:39:25 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; NetBSD amd64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1

On 12.05.2017 22:22, address@hidden wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 08:17:34PM +0200, Kamil Rytarowski wrote:
>>>> NetBSD libc has hard requirement on __builtin_va_list (or some
>>>> equivalent builtin). Without it, we cannot use TCC on NetBSD.
>>> Would you elaborate in which way the requirement is "hard"?
>> We require C and C++ compilers that ship with popular extensions on par
>> with GCC.
>> Old va_list has been retired with the following commit:
>> https://github.com/NetBSD/src/commit/9735e84a7821b8a9cc42139d798ee188c4dd9368
>> This restricts NetBSD to GCC, Clang, PCC and perhaps ICC.
>> We set minimum reasonable set of features mandatory in the toolchain.
> I would say you make it harder to build with other toolchains but
> unsupported is still not impossible.
> OTOH there is probably little motivation to insist on a "native" tcc
> toolchain on NetBSD, because Linux binaries buildable under NetBSD with
> tcc (and among others musl) are nicely runnable on NetBSD and have the
> addditional advantage not to be bound to a certain version of the kernel.
> This of course is not valid if someone wants to build _NetBSD_ with tcc.

This sadly blocks building code on NetBSD (or with NetBSD libc).
Certainly there is an option to use a 3rd party libc for TCC.. but this
is now what I would like to pay for using a new compiler.

This makes pretty high requirement for smaller compilers, including 8cc.
They currently aren't usable.

Researching the build of the NetBSD kernel and userland with TCC would
be possible, once requirements will be met.

I'm pretty sure that if TCC would produce valid NetBSD base system and
get maintenance, we could discuss attaching TCC to NetBSD releng
buildservers (at least for x86).

>> Certain things cannot be reliably done in a portable way in libc, like
>> alloca(3).
> A good point. Some things should not be the business of libc.
> IMHO stdarg.h is the compiler business, not a libc concern,
> but the policy you present is yours, not mine. Ok.
> Thanks for the answer Kamil!

FreeBSD went another way to restore x86 stdarg.h to appease TCC... but
they don't much care about !x86 targets, in NetBSD this isn't a viable

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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]