...hopefully this is the last... I have rewritten how a macro is rescanned for more macros to expand by using iteration instead of recursion. All test cases and all code I have tested works. The earlier logic failed on simple things like #define X(...) #define Y(...) __VA_ARGS__ Y(X X() ()) which should expand to nothing in c99. -- Ragge
On 11/27/2010 10:13 PM, Anders Magnusson wrote: > On 11/26/2010 10:21 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote: >> Anders Magnusson dixit: >> >>> I assume you want compile date >> Actually, compile date is not saying much, at least, it may >> even be outright dangerous. Can you amend your cvs checkout >> script to write $(date +'%Y%M%D') into a file and configure >> to read that and append it to pcc-snapshot's version number >> (if it exists, otherwise do nothing)? > Yes, you are correct. I'll try to fix this. ...and fixed. Now the checkout date will be the date given in the version string. -- Ragge
Hi, with a few hacks (copied *.o files from gcc, cp libgcc.a libpcc.a, since I didn’t have its source checked out nor internet access; and different -dynamic-linker and entry point (different number of _ preceding start), I’ve cross-built a hello world for µClibc on mips (with a speed startling my friend, who’s developing a toolkit for building embedded systems). Thought you wanted to know ☺ bye, //mirabilos -- -- “Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool.” -- Edward Burr
On Sun, 9 Jan 2011, Anders Magnusson wrote: > ...hopefully this is the last... never! > I have rewritten how a macro is rescanned for more macros to expand by > using iteration instead of recursion. All test cases and all code I > have tested works. I saw a build failure on GCC due to discarded qualifiers, patch below.. iain Index: cpp.c =================================================================== RCS file: /cvsroot/pcc/cc/cpp/cpp.c,v retrieving revision 1.112 diff -u -r1.112 cpp.c --- cpp.c 9 Jan 2011 15:25:39 -0000 1.112 +++ cpp.c 10 Jan 2011 09:10:18 -0000 <at> <at> -135,7 +135,7 <at> <at> usch *xstrdup(const char *str); const usch *prtprag(const usch *opb); static void addidir(char *idir, struct incs **ww); -void imp(char *); +void imp(const char *); #define IMP(x) if (dflag>1) imp(x) int(Continue reading)
Thanks, checked in. -- Ragge Iain Hibbert wrote: > On Sun, 9 Jan 2011, Anders Magnusson wrote: > > >> ...hopefully this is the last... >> > > never! > > >> I have rewritten how a macro is rescanned for more macros to expand by >> using iteration instead of recursion. All test cases and all code I >> have tested works. >> > > I saw a build failure on GCC due to discarded qualifiers, patch below.. > > iain > > Index: cpp.c > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvsroot/pcc/cc/cpp/cpp.c,v > retrieving revision 1.112 > diff -u -r1.112 cpp.c > --- cpp.c 9 Jan 2011 15:25:39 -0000 1.112 > +++ cpp.c 10 Jan 2011 09:10:18 -0000(Continue reading)
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, Iain Hibbert wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jan 2011, Anders Magnusson wrote:
> > I have rewritten how a macro is rescanned for more macros to expand by
> > using iteration instead of recursion. All test cases and all code I
> > have tested works.
>
> I saw a build failure on GCC due to discarded qualifiers, patch below..
Also, _Pragma expansion seems to be broken.. I get "bad pragma operator"
for a file containing just _Pragma("string") for example..
I'm not sure, here, that pragoper() function looks right, seems it would
produce an error "pragoper expmac" during normal operation?
iain
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 09:52:49AM +0000, Iain Hibbert wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, Iain Hibbert wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Jan 2011, Anders Magnusson wrote:
> > > I have rewritten how a macro is rescanned for more macros to expand by
> > > using iteration instead of recursion. All test cases and all code I
> > > have tested works.
> >
> > I saw a build failure on GCC due to discarded qualifiers, patch below..
>
> Also, _Pragma expansion seems to be broken.. I get "bad pragma operator"
> for a file containing just _Pragma("string") for example..
>
> I'm not sure, here, that pragoper() function looks right, seems it would
> produce an error "pragoper expmac" during normal operation?
Indeed.
njoly <at> petaure [~]> cat main.c
#define __BEGIN _Pragma("GCC visibility push(default)")
#define __END _Pragma("GCC visibility pop")
__BEGIN
extern int foo;
__END
int main() { return 0; }
njoly <at> petaure [~]> pcc -o main main.c
main.c:4: error: pragoper expmac
--
--
(Continue reading)On Sun, 9 Jan 2011, Anders Magnusson wrote: > Now the checkout date will be the date given in the version string. the DATESTAMP file should be referenced as $srcdir/DATESTAMP I think? (as patch below, and regen configure) actually I'm not sure of this, as I see[1] an AC_REQUIRE_AUX_FILE() macro that probably should be used to ensure the existence of the file, which implies that it should be in $aux_dir ? (however, I don't see a variable by that name, there is ac_aux_dir perhaps thats it.. :) regards, iain [1] http://www.gnu.org/software/hello/manual/autoconf/Input.html Index: configure.ac =================================================================== RCS file: /cvsroot/pcc/configure.ac,v retrieving revision 1.91 diff -u -r1.91 configure.ac --- configure.ac 9 Jan 2011 20:59:07 -0000 1.91 +++ configure.ac 10 Jan 2011 17:15:34 -0000 <at> <at> -438,7 +438,7 <at> <at> pcc_major=`echo $PACKAGE_VERSION | awk -F. '{print $1}'` pcc_minor=`echo $PACKAGE_VERSION | awk -F. '{print $2}'` pcc_minorminor=`echo $PACKAGE_VERSION | awk -F. '{print $3}'`(Continue reading)
Nicolas Joly wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 09:52:49AM +0000, Iain Hibbert wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 10 Jan 2011, Iain Hibbert wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 9 Jan 2011, Anders Magnusson wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have rewritten how a macro is rescanned for more macros to expand by
>>>> using iteration instead of recursion. All test cases and all code I
>>>> have tested works.
>>>>
>>> I saw a build failure on GCC due to discarded qualifiers, patch below..
>>>
>> Also, _Pragma expansion seems to be broken.. I get "bad pragma operator"
>> for a file containing just _Pragma("string") for example..
>>
>> I'm not sure, here, that pragoper() function looks right, seems it would
>> produce an error "pragoper expmac" during normal operation?
>>
>
> Indeed.
>
> njoly <at> petaure [~]> cat main.c
> #define __BEGIN _Pragma("GCC visibility push(default)")
> #define __END _Pragma("GCC visibility pop")
>
> __BEGIN
> extern int foo;
> __END
>
(Continue reading)I just installed pcc onto Intel Pentium 4 in 32-bit mode running Linux Fedora Core 14. I installed via software install of a RPM package. I believe it is 2010/11/07 version of pcc. Doing: pcc --help gets Usage: /usr/bin/ld [options] file... Options: -a KEYWORD Shared library control for HP/UX compatibility ... that is, it tells me about the linker, not the compiler. So, how do I get the help information about the compiler? --- Fred J. Tydeman Tydeman Consulting tydeman <at> tybor.com Testing, numerics, programming +1 (775) 358-9748 Vice-chair of PL22.11 (ANSI "C") Sample C99+FPCE tests: http://www.tybor.com Savers sleep well, investors eat well, spenders work forever.
RSS Feed1 | |
|---|---|
16 | |
5 | |
25 | |
4 | |
10 | |
4 | |
7 | |
53 | |
66 | |
2 | |
26 | |
4 | |
13 | |
18 | |
5 | |
15 | |
8 | |
59 | |
14 | |
4 | |
49 | |
38 | |
13 | |
75 | |
65 | |
30 | |
25 | |
48 | |
10 | |
59 | |
64 | |
50 | |
24 | |
17 | |
62 | |
69 | |
66 | |
5 | |
6 | |
5 | |
10 | |
4 | |
3 | |
11 | |
47 | |
27 | |
4 | |
42 | |
16 | |
12 | |
11 | |
8 | |
53 | |
80 | |
27 | |
8 | |
23 | |
67 | |
107 | |
42 | |
66 | |
48 | |
98 | |
18 | |
75 | |
117 | |
300 | |
176 |
