This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: demand_empty_rest_of_line and ignore_rest_of_line


On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Zack Weinberg wrote:

> Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> writes:
>
> > All it takes is to change some spacing like "move.d r0, r1" to
> > move.d r0,r1" and remove spurious (often just extraneous)
> > spacing in target-defined pseudoopcodes and rarely used
> > constructs like the trampoline template.
>
> Well, yeah, see, i386.md was changed from the #NO_APP-compatible
> "mov %0,%1" to the current "mov\t%0, %1" in the egcs 1.1 timeframe, if

Right, IIRC I even mentioned i386.md last time. :-)
The i386 backend rewrite (going from CC0) had this
#NO_APP-incompatibility as an extra at no additional charge.

> I recall right, and so we've had a chance to try the same assembly
> language both ways, and I vastly prefer it with the tab and the space.

FWIW, I think you can have the TAB, but not the extra space in
the parameters.

The lack of this extra space (and/or the TAB) is a "*severe*
degradation in readability"?  Hmm.  I believe we've reduced this
issue to a matter of taste.  (Again, methinks -- same conclusion
as last time.)

brgds, H-P
PS  "Prescrubbed" is a misnomer, certainly about the #NO_APP strict format.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]