Re: [perl #45857] [IMCC][RFC] #line vs .line

2008-11-24 Thread Klaas-Jan Stol
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 2:00 AM, Patrick R. Michaud [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 02:31:58AM +0100, Jonathan Worthington wrote: Oh, argh, so .line now carries the file *and* the line number?.I wanted it to just carry the line number (the clue's in the name... ;-)) and

Re: [perl #45857] [IMCC][RFC] #line vs .line

2008-11-23 Thread Jonathan Worthington
Klaas-Jan Stol via RT wrote: On Thu Dec 13 04:35:13 2007, pmichaud wrote: On Sat Sep 29 08:57:28 2007, kjs wrote: A few months ago, the #line directive was implemented. I'm wondering what the reason was why it looks like a comment (as # will start a comment). Is there any

Re: [perl #45857] [IMCC][RFC] #line vs .line

2008-11-23 Thread Klaas-Jan Stol
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Jonathan Worthington [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Klaas-Jan Stol via RT wrote: On Thu Dec 13 04:35:13 2007, pmichaud wrote: On Sat Sep 29 08:57:28 2007, kjs wrote: A few months ago, the #line directive was implemented. I'm wondering what the reason was why

Re: [perl #45857] [IMCC][RFC] #line vs .line

2008-11-23 Thread Jonathan Worthington
Klaas-Jan Stol wrote: Minor detail: .file does not actually exist, except in PIRC. Well, I guess we can add it... I do not have a strong preference for adding it. Pro: it's a bit clearer than .line, as .line indicates, ehm, the line :-) Specifying a filename by .line is a bit weird. Con:

Re: [perl #45857] [IMCC][RFC] #line vs .line

2008-11-23 Thread Patrick R. Michaud
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 02:31:58AM +0100, Jonathan Worthington wrote: Oh, argh, so .line now carries the file *and* the line number?.I wanted it to just carry the line number (the clue's in the name... ;-)) and have .file carry the filename. Then the source you compiled from one file has

Re: [perl #45857] [IMCC][RFC] #line vs .line

2008-11-23 Thread Jonathan Worthington
Patrick R. Michaud wrote: Either way works for me -- PCT can generate either without much difficulty. It probably makes more sense to have separate .file and .line directives. In particular, I wouldn't want to be repeating the .file annotation information throughout the bytecode! :-) Just a

Re: [perl #45857] [IMCC][RFC] #line vs .line

2008-11-23 Thread Patrick R. Michaud
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 03:10:47AM +0100, Jonathan Worthington wrote: Patrick R. Michaud wrote: Just a reminder that the central issue for PCT and other HLL's is that the current #line, setline, setfile, etc. instructions are currently intimately tied to lines of PIR source (RT #43269), and

[perl #45857] [IMCC][RFC] #line vs .line

2007-12-13 Thread Patrick R. Michaud via RT
On Sat Sep 29 08:57:28 2007, kjs wrote: A few months ago, the #line directive was implemented. I'm wondering what the reason was why it looks like a comment (as # will start a comment). Is there any reason to not replace this by .line? A directive typically tells the assembler/compiler