This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: RFC: designated initializer vs. long long for i386 assembler
- From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich at novell dot com>
- To: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Cc: <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 08:21:49 +0000
- Subject: Re: RFC: designated initializer vs. long long for i386 assembler
- References: <20070212155323.GA8495@lucon.org> <20070213232407.GB15831@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20070214001412.GA30144@lucon.org> <20070214015134.GA8541@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20070214020138.GA30518@lucon.org> <20070312190508.GA7845@lucon.org>
>>> "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> 12.03.07 20:05 >>>
>On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:01:38PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 12:21:34PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 04:14:12PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
>> > > I need much more than 2 bits, which won't fit in the current
>> > > 32bit int.
>> >
>> > Then I suggest adding another field. I don't think we can force
>> > people to use a C99 compiler to build binutils.
>>
>> Adding another field will lead to massive changes to x86 assembler.
>> I will use long long if C99 feature isn't desirable.
>>
>> BTW, I compared long long vs int. There is not much slow down in
>> assembler.
>
>We can use designated initializer in include/opcode/i386.h. We put a
>generated copy of it, i386-inst.h, in gas/config, which doesn't
>use designated initializer. tc-i386.c will include i386-inst.h
>instead of opcode/i386.h. We will put a tool in gas to generate
>gas/config/i386-inst.h from include/opcode/i386.h. We can require
>that such a tool has to be compiled with a C99 compiler.
Why would the compilation of a tool needed for building be any
different from the compilation of any final code? If a system doesn't
have C99 support, then a tool wouldn't build as much as gas itself
would. Am I missing something?
Jan