This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: bogus .quad in i386/att.h
David> and it broke cygwin bootstrap
Jan> I am not quite sure if it is cleaner to ifdef around each ASM_QUAD
Jan> use, or if we can just define ASM_QUAD to ".quad" everywhere...
Well, ".quad" is definitely not part of the standard AT&T assembler
syntax. Elsewhere in the compiler, it already knows how to do this
anyway. Isn't that what UNALGINED_DOUBLE_INT_ASM_OP is about?
Why invent something new here?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Lipe [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, 9 October 2001 11:38
> To: email@example.com
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: bogus .quad in i386/att.h
> Jan, your commit that starts:
> Tue Oct 2 12:46:01 CEST 2001 Bo Thorsen <email@example.com>,
> Andreas Jaeger <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
> Jan Hubicka <email@example.com>
> * doc/invoke.texi (i386 Options): Document x86-64 options.
> (i386 and x86-64 Options): Rename i386 options section.
> added an entry for ASM_QUAD in att.h. But the ChangeLog does not
> call out any change to att.h.
> ..quad is definitely not something supported by the AT&T-derived
> assemblers. Maybe it's a GAS thing and should be in gas.h. Maybe it's
> an x86-64 thing and should be in x86-64.h. But att.h sure seems like
> the wrong place for it. This does show up as testsuite failures.
> Can you please move this?
> Thank you,