some ideas to gnu as

[Nick Clifton]

Hi Miro,

> Hoho, so I certainly didn't understand it well then! So only difference 
> is I don't use named labels (which is pity but not that unusable at all) 
> but 1..9 instead? 

Actually any positive integer will work, not just 1..9.

> As I see it, it's much error-prone than that named 
> labels, esp. in some more complicated constructions with 6-7 local 
> labels...

True, although GAS's implementation does have the advantage that you can 
make forward references to local labels as well as backwards references. 
  So that for example:

     foo 1f
1:                 ; <--- first local label
     bar 1b
     baz 1f
1:                ; <--- second local label

Here both foo and bar refer to the first local label and baz refers to 
the second local label.  As I understand it from your description of the 
local labels that you are used to, you cannot make forward references, 
correct ?

> but in principle, do you have something against "my" version 
> of local labels?

In principle no, although stylistically yes.  Gas has always treated the 
period character (.), when it appears as the first character in a 
symbol, as indicating the start of a pseudo-operator.  (eg .global, 
.word, .text etc).  So it would be very confusing if a dot prefix were 
used also to introduce a local label.  Maybe if you introduced a new 
pseudo-operator, eg ".local", and used that instead it would be better.  ie:

   .local loop
      foo
      foo
      b loop

Cheers
   Nick