[Bug gas/2848] macro name syntax changed
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2848 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Status|WAITING |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX --- Comment #7 from Alan Modra --- Even if "." isn't part of a name the macro is bad. The first argument (for size) becomes ".l $%d0" so the result would be "move.l%d0 %d1," after the usual whitespace removal. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug gas/2848] macro name syntax changed
--- Additional Comments From zippel at linux-m68k dot org 2006-07-28 17:32 --- BTW while looking through the source it may make sense to disable the dot completely on m68k as part of the name. It's not really valid as part of any symbol name, e.g. label.w has a special meaning. Although this would require a few more changes in the m68k parser, but it should mainly become simpler, e.g. it would make the extra look ahead in m68k-parse.y:yylex() unnecessary. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2848 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
Re: [Bug gas/2848] macro name syntax changed
Hi Roman, You read it correctly, the intention is to provide the opcodes foo.b/foo.w/foo.l, so using foo .l would be even more confusing. OK, so presumably a workaround is to provide individual macros with the names foo.b, foo.w and so on, rather than just one macro. The point is that gas broke compatibility here, so I can't provide such opcodes at all anymore. Hmm, well the change was to make macros names consistent with other names. ie if string was a valid name for a (pseudo) opcode or a label, then it could also be a valid name for a macro. I appreciate however that this did break backwards compatibility. So please could you try out the uploaded patch and let me know if it works for you. (You will need to add the command line switch --no-dot-in-macro-names to assembler command line). Cheers Nick ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/2848] macro name syntax changed
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2006-07-26 10:41 --- Subject: Re: macro name syntax changed Hi Roman, You read it correctly, the intention is to provide the opcodes foo.b/foo.w/foo.l, so using foo .l would be even more confusing. OK, so presumably a workaround is to provide individual macros with the names foo.b, foo.w and so on, rather than just one macro. The point is that gas broke compatibility here, so I can't provide such opcodes at all anymore. Hmm, well the change was to make macros names consistent with other names. ie if string was a valid name for a (pseudo) opcode or a label, then it could also be a valid name for a macro. I appreciate however that this did break backwards compatibility. So please could you try out the uploaded patch and let me know if it works for you. (You will need to add the command line switch --no-dot-in-macro-names to assembler command line). Cheers Nick -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2848 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/2848] macro name syntax changed
--- Additional Comments From nickc at redhat dot com 2006-07-24 17:01 --- Subject: Re: New: macro name syntax changed Hi Zippel, Until at least 2.15 as accepted a macro like this: .macro foo size,arg,arg2 move\size \arg,\arg2 .endm foo.l %d0,%d1 Another alternative is to restore the old behaviour, which only accepts alphanumeric characters and '_'/'$'. Wouldn't it be better to fix the sources that use this confusing form of macro invocation. Reading this as a programmer it looks to me like you are trying to use an opcode called foo.l and not a macro called foo whose first argument is .l. ie wouldn't it be clearer to have: foo .l, %d0, %d1 Cheers Nick -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2848 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
[Bug gas/2848] macro name syntax changed
-- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2848 --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. ___ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
