[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Tinycc-devel] Unify C and asm symbols

From: Michael Matz
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Unify C and asm symbols
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 23:59:59 +0100 (CET)
User-agent: Alpine 2.21 (LSU 202 2017-01-01)


On Mon, 4 Dec 2017, grischka wrote:

> Michael Matz wrote:
> >> Here 'x5' should have the g[lobal] binding from C.
> > 
> > ... I have fixed this in mob with a one-liner instead :)
> Well, however this one line
> > +   if (esym && s->type.t == VT_VOID) {
> gives an interesting hint too because if after all we "post-process"
> only asm symbols then this means (IMO) that logically equivalently
> the same changes can be made to the symbol in place as well.
> Anyway, while at it (and making more tests), I tried that and it
> seems to work quite well.
> I've attached it as "no-asm-stack.patch".

Oh, shiny! :)  I like it.  It also works on my linux kernel sources, and 
some other things, so it's a definite improvement.  I'd say, apply.

> It clearly still has unwanted behavior with compiling multiple files
> if symbols with same name are defined as global in one file and
> then as static in another file.

Yeah, that, but not worse than before.

> The other "patch-type.patch" somewhat unifies type redefinition

And that's nice as well, I always wanted to do something similar, and 
never came to it.  Less lines --> good! :)

> Anyway. you might use these patches as just ideas or to run some tests
> to see if we can include them as is for the release.

As is.

> Apropos release, I don't have problems if the released version has
> "limitations" say with some corner cases, as long as unlikely an
> even simpler approach exist with equal or even less limitations.

Yeah, releases will always have problems, and there always will be new 
releases (err, hopefully :) ), so I also don't see problems with 
limitations.  I'm basically fine with a release whenever there aren't 
known regressions (i.e. something worked fine say two months ago, but 
doesn't anymore).  That's the case right now, no regressions.  And with 
your patches (also no regressions) tcc code is even smaller :)

> IOW if we're possibly somewhere close to such possibly simpler and
> better approach then I think it's worth to still wait, 1, 2, 3 ...
> weeks doesn't matter ;)

But, but ... Christmas!  :)


reply via email to

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