Re: ill effect of <register>+<constant>

["Jan Beulich" <jbeulich at novell dot com>]

>>> Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> 21.09.07 18:21 >>>
>"Dave Korn" <dave.korn@artimi.com> writes:
>
>> On 21 September 2007 16:13, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>
>>> "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@novell.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> To me, adding a constant to a register and getting a different register is
>>>> all but a useful feature (maybe it is in e.g. PPC semantics where registers
>>>> can be represented by plain numbers). But beyond that,
>>> 
>>> That's the main feature.  Registers _are_ plain numbers.
>>
>>   I can see where that's useful on pcc, but on x86, the registers aren't
>> equipotent; it makes no sense at all to me.
>
>But it does no harm either.  So why cripple the assembler?  If you want
>text replacement then use a text macro.

What are text macros? I didn't think gas knew of this concept (which e.g. masm
supports). The only way I could imagine this to work would be to use CPP, but
you can't really make CPP use a requirement (specifically because there are
things you can't express or which look very wrong with CPP that you can with
.macro).

Jan