[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5ae8c7fa-aed9-d957-fe53-68eb2fa622a6@ludd.ltu.se>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 09:10:40 +0200
From: Anders Magnusson <ragge@...d.ltu.se>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
John Arnold <iohannes.eduardus.arnold@...il.com>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com, pcc@...ts.ludd.ltu.se
Subject: Re: [Pcc] PCC unable to build musl 1.2.0 (and likely earlier)
Den 2020-05-12 kl. 23:21, skrev Rich Felker:
> Thanks. Adding pcc list to cc.
>
> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 03:59:36PM -0500, John Arnold wrote:
>> With an i386 PCC 1.2.0.DEVEL built from source from
>> http://pcc.ludd.ltu.se/ftp/pub/pcc/pcc-20200510.tgz, I was unable to
>> build an i386 musl 1.2.0. The compiler first hits this error:
>>
>> ../include/limits.h:10: error: bad charcon
>>
>> This line was the only change made in commit cdbbcfb8f5d, but it has a
>> lengthy commit message about the proper way of determining CHAR_MIN
>> and CHAR_MAX.
> I think this is clearly a PCC bug, one they can hopefully fix. The
> commit message cites the example from 6.4.4.4:
Can you please sen med the offending line?
>> Reverting that change fixes the issue with limits.h, but PCC then runs
>> into another problem:
>>
>> src/complex/catan.c, line 105: operands of = have incompatible types
>> src/complex/catan.c, line 105: cannot recover from earlier errors: goodbye!
> Are there any warnings before this? Perhaps pcc is not aware of
> __builtin_complex and treating it as an implicit declaration of a
> function returning int? But then int should still convert to complex
> double just fine, so I think the problem is just a weird bug in PCC
> with complex types.
Same here, can you send me the line that causes the bug?
And true, __builtin_complex is not recognized in pcc.
>> Undoing this change results in hitting yet more errors:
>> /tmp/ctm.AkDmnc: Assembler messages:
>> /tmp/ctm.AkDmnc:50: Error: bad register name `%%ax'
> Which file is this in? I think it's inline asm expanded from
> somewhere, maybe the new x86 math functions, and it might be something
> we're doing not quite right or a PCC bug. We could suppress the asm
> with pcc (or with a configure test for the bug) if it's not something
> they can fix.
Pcc recognizes gcc extended assembler, but it is more strict than gcc so
it sometimes
reveals bugs that gcc don't catch.
...and same here, please send me what fails so that I can fix the bugs :-)
-- R
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
