tinycc/tests/tests2/31_args.c

#include <stdio.h>

int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
   int Count;

   printf("hello world %d\n", argc);
   for (Count = 1; Count < argc; Count++)
      printf("arg %d: %s\n", Count, argv[Count]);

   return 0;
}

/* vim: set expandtab ts=4 sw=3 sts=3 tw=80 :*/
tests: Added numerous tests. The tests are taken almost verbatim from the open source project PicoC. It can be found at https://code.google.com/p/picoc/. The tests range from very simple/trivial ones to more complicated. My view is that the more tests the better. Without tests like this I was very reluctant to make any changes to tcc for the fear of breaking things. The tests pass on Win32, OSX, Linux x86 and x86_64. One or two tests fail on each platform due to differences in the runtime library. 2012-06-19 01:27:32 +08:00			`#include <stdio.h>`

			`int main(int argc, char **argv)`
			`{`
			`int Count;`

			`printf("hello world %d\n", argc);`
tests2: cleanup - remove -norunsrc switch Meaning and usage (-run -norun...???) look sort of screwed. Also general usefulness is unclear, so it was actually to support exactly one (not even very interesting) test This partially reverts e31579b0769e1f9c0947d12e83316d1149307b1a 2014-04-07 17:20:45 +08:00			`for (Count = 1; Count < argc; Count++)`
tests: Added numerous tests. The tests are taken almost verbatim from the open source project PicoC. It can be found at https://code.google.com/p/picoc/. The tests range from very simple/trivial ones to more complicated. My view is that the more tests the better. Without tests like this I was very reluctant to make any changes to tcc for the fear of breaking things. The tests pass on Win32, OSX, Linux x86 and x86_64. One or two tests fail on each platform due to differences in the runtime library. 2012-06-19 01:27:32 +08:00			`printf("arg %d: %s\n", Count, argv[Count]);`

			`return 0;`
			`}`

			`/* vim: set expandtab ts=4 sw=3 sts=3 tw=80 :*/`