From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 28447 invoked from network); 15 May 2020 00:22:38 -0000 Received: from mother.openwall.net (195.42.179.200) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 15 May 2020 00:22:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 3203 invoked by uid 550); 15 May 2020 00:22:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com Received: (qmail 3182 invoked from network); 15 May 2020 00:22:32 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=lw5bn/pioketGx4cKjKZYzoKqfxFxd3obUHftKICP9w=; b=ELa3PsGrjV+rFRjU45ATxIrAtwefm7RU2wWikW2naU2pk6RT1xn8qPMXnrzVrU6TpY pZvj987JAewmP/cxC66LeG4EsHdGVsN38Z5bLfsfFpRDj30BFLQaBNfuZkQmfdg+hPi+ B8ml4R4Nfix+1bU+Yhj0g5Wnsi2uZmIaGEhtcwlJHFcmW9uDac9jfDT24atrmThrgj4n JNQ/7Twc7nj8iX2BlhZgqylX5auoEV6Y4hTEobt3djmt5Sfv4mfl2deOlX6QFQ8v8bVr VgOVLBtnuXhxyd/Jz62xr9fOM15BOSg+1S7oQArzWFYPFweT6CnOb/pYGTO7k3R1pOBh GvZA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=lw5bn/pioketGx4cKjKZYzoKqfxFxd3obUHftKICP9w=; b=DJbXbCm/CoJpZKevWLJZXuOmxAsTyWHkPew7iTIWSwQeU6pEl8kx4YRH8Z9dmgtiOR cAbJ1Ku50MthCFCD/m/xCV8tHqv84NcIapqlKAk1Fh/7DFAovVnkeZEprauwcsdgE0Ui nQf6zIDIV2xi0YMoMmNXPD2wGc4Q1nyPu9uAgn7FeCu8anuwWCTceuxBZFBNh6wIsu3X /PcHnHAU+S8Ov9Cl3OVjKE/tuXZZ94c1sHh1/P1fJckPuSDxwoIXpMD0ETe+kWMwx1Qy oH3le2uv9byJdW9hYaT1ajsFOscOIwutHHBs2rXjXjHODiEaqWgOpbfZyzGpPJES+DiN QOrg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533V1j3qIneHbJuEJ8qIOth/FPcl+3l+aXoMmw1LdcVnBwmGJd96 wTxYQKWH8khWew13vBARRwHOOp8OSSbCYR0itGc= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyWutcwqBgFqrlFdMNxDCXJCTAK2gR0CquFJHoE32w4lD2uO9oSWA8Zr0tsvXx7qF7i8bqYe7mdO7celbvy3D0= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:b24c:: with SMTP id b73mr643407iof.63.1589502140657; Thu, 14 May 2020 17:22:20 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200512212127.GQ21576@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <5ae8c7fa-aed9-d957-fe53-68eb2fa622a6@ludd.ltu.se> <20200513172718.GW21576@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20200513180451.GX21576@brightrain.aerifal.cx> In-Reply-To: <20200513180451.GX21576@brightrain.aerifal.cx> From: John Arnold Date: Thu, 14 May 2020 19:24:53 -0500 Message-ID: To: Rich Felker Cc: Anders Magnusson , musl@lists.openwall.com, pcc@lists.ludd.ltu.se Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Subject: Re: [musl] Re: [Pcc] [musl] PCC unable to build musl 1.2.0 (and likely earlier) On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 1:04 PM Rich Felker wrote: > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 12:53:55PM -0500, John Arnold wrote: > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 12:27 PM Rich Felker wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 12:00:24PM -0500, John Arnold wrote: > > > > > Can you please sen med the offending line? > > > > > > > > include/limits.h:10: > > > > #if '\xff' > 0 > > > > > > > > > Same here, can you send me the line that causes the bug? > > > > > And true, __builtin_complex is not recognized in pcc. > > > > > > > > catan.c:105 is: > > > > w = CMPLX(w, 0.25 * log(a)); > > > > > > > > which pcc -E expands to: > > > > w = ((union { _Complex double __z; double __xy[2]; }){.__xy = > > > > {(w),(0.25 * log(a))}}.__z); > > > > > > Where are you getting this from? There has not been any union compound > > > literal like that since 2014 because it was found not to be valid in > > > constant expressions and CMPLX is required to produce a constant > > > expression. Commit 5ff2a118c64224789b7286830912425e58831b2b is > > > informative, and the message notes that CMPLX is a C11 feature, so > > > since the musl source is supposed to build with just C99 (+ minimal > > > extensions) perhaps we should drop internal use of CMPLX anyway... > > > > The full command I ran was: > > pcc -D_XOPEN_SOURCE=700 -I./arch/i386 -I./arch/generic > > -Iobj/src/internal -I./src/include -I./src/internal -Iobj/include > > -I./include -DBROKEN_EBX_ASM -E src/complex/catan.c > > > > And that's what pcc spit out (with a similar expansion of cimag() in > > line 92). I don't understand pcc's inner workings enough to say why. > > Ohh, different definitions from src/internal/complex_impl.h are still > used internally because the public complex.h definitions are dependent > on a compiler with extensions to do C11-conforming macros. > > So it looks like this is probably just a bug in something to do with > PCC's compound literal handling. Just want to confirm that as of pcc 1.2.0.DEVEL 20200514, for i386 I can build musl 1.1.19. Musl versions 1.1.20 to 1.2.0 still have this issue with the CMPLX macro.