If I put the labels in the macro, then I will get a duplicate label (for the macro will be expanded out, and have multiple labels.
I have worked around this, by having the labels passed in, but would like to not have to do that. Or is there something I am missing about scope on macros? On Sunday, June 8, 2014 12:32:50 PM UTC-4, Charles Kerr wrote: > > I have been trying how to find a way to do a relative branch (from the > current instruction pointer) for a branch. > > > I have something like this: > > .macro SETBIT > .mparam reg,bit,lab,lab2 > QBBC lab, BYTE_VALUE,bit > SET r30, 14 > QBA lab2 > lab: > CLR r30,14 > lab2: > > > > > What I would like to do is on the first QBBC, provide a relative label (so > I don't have to pass a unique name to the macro. The same for QBA lab2. > > On a PIC one can do a $+#, where $ is the current instruction pointer, and > the # is is the number of instructions to jump forward (or backward if > negative). Is something like this possible? > -- For more options, visit http://beagleboard.org/discuss --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BeagleBoard" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
