This is the mail archive of the 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: RFC: Saving and restoring the assembler state during assembly

Dave Martin <> writes:
> However, there's not really anything fundamentally
> architecture-specific about this problem, and ideally the solution and
> the directives should not be architecture-specific either.
> One option which appeals to me is to have some directives which can
> exist across all architectures, and do something analogous to what
> .set push and ,set pop do on MIPS.

FWIW, this sounds like a really good idea to me.  I won't argue about
the syntax (I have no particular preference).

> I feel that the environment should also include global,
> target-independent state such as the current macro mode (.altmacro
> versus .noaltmacro) and current ELF section stack state, but not
> symbols or macro definitions themselves.

Sounds reasonable.  To state the obvious, we'd have to make the existing
target-dependent groupings (like .set push/pop on MIPS) work with this
new scheme, but those directives musn't affect this extra target-independent
information.  So the new directives would interact with both the
traditional .pushsection and the traditional target-dependent directives,
even though those two features would otherwise remain independent.

That is, .pushsection and .set push/pop operate on conceptually
separate stacks whoses pushes and pops can be freely mixed.
But .pushsection and the new directives would need to be
strictly stacked; pops must have the same form as their
corresponding pushes.  Combinations of .set push/pop and
the new directives would also need to be strictly stacked.

Nothing a bit of code can't handle though.


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