This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org 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] |
I'm progressing with this task ... however, my original idea was that the S12Z should be an optional target under the general configuration of m68hc11. That is to say, binutils would need to be built using ./configure --target=mc68hc11 and then at run time use a command like: as -mm9s12z foo.s I suppose the reasons for deciding that was that this is how the S12X has been done. However, I'm having more and more misgivings about this. The S12X and S12Z have quite different instruction sets. So far as I'm aware, code for one of those processors cannot be run on the other. Having the two (actually five - that target already includes m68hc11, m68hc12, m9s12x and m9s12xg) instruction sets generated by the same binary means that extra run time conditions must be included, which of course will slow the assembler. It also introduces the risk of introducing bugs which might break the other existing targets. So I'm now thinking that a better option will be to target this as a completely new configuration option, eg: ./configure --target=s12z Is there any existing policy or precident in binutils for such decisions? J' -- Avoid eavesdropping. Send strong encrypted email. PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3 See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |