Re: Dietlibc + tcc

> That's bad. Sane libraries should work with sane compilers ;)
> (GCC 4.5.1 is _awfully_ slow here; tcc compiles at 0.8 c)
> I just thought tcc compatilibity was some kind of wanted, because of the
> tcc specific sections.

dietlibc will not work with tcc.
The goal of the tcc specific parts was to find out if we can do
something about that, but back then it looked hopeless so I settled on
being able to use tcc to link dietlibc programs.

> >>3. alloca is ubiquitiously used, but defined nowhere.
> >Unless prohibited by -fno-builtin or -fno-builtin-alloca, that function is
> >a gcc builtin. There is no sensible way to write it outside of the
> >compiler. alloca() allocates memory on the stack. That is, it decreases
> >the stack pointer. Can't do that in a separate function.
> Hm. There seem to be some patches to provide it; didn't knew it had to
> be a compiler builtin (which seems odd to me, but well).

You know, before ranting on our mailing list, maybe next time you'll
spend some time investigating the issue first?  Just saying. :)

Felix