> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> >> In looking at the VAX ASM problem, I realized that the ASM in s_lock.h
> >> is all formatted differently, making it even more confusing. I have
> >> applied the following patch to s_lock.h to try and clean it up.
>
> > I don't believe in this patch at all. It makes the assumption that all
> > assemblers have equally forgiving lexical rules as a certain subset of
> > said assemblers. For example, the VAX code does not look at all like the
> > one back when it still worked.
>
> Good point. I think it's safe to use the split-up-string-literal
> feature, but assuming that ';' can replace '\n' is sheer folly, and so
> is assuming that whitespace doesn't matter (ie, that opcodes starting
> in column 1 are OK). Bruce, I'd suggest a format more like
>
> "[label] opcode operands \n"
>
> for each line of assembly code.
Interestingly, we have very few non-gcc ASM entries in s_lock.h. The
only non-gcc one I see are Univel/i386, and I didn't touch that. Isn't
the semicolon the standard command terminator for all gcc assemblers?
I see non-gcc stuff in s_lock.c, but I didn't touch that. I also see
volatile missing in s_lock.c, which I will add for GCC entries.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
