This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Cleanups for the m68k backend
On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:50:06PM +0200, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> On Monday 07 July 2003 13:14, Gunther Nikl wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 11:24:43AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > > Note that GAS accepts both syntaxes, so if every supported target is
> > > using GAS then we can rip it out immediately.
> >
> > Not every GAS version supports it. Why removing MIT syntax? The same
> > could be demanded for Motorola syntax...
>
> Maintaing both syntaxes adds complexity
Yes, but not that much.
> and makes every change to the m68k back-end harder to write and test.
No. If you don't like the #idefs then make MOTOROLA a 0/1 define and use
real if()s.
> After the last round of obsolete target removal, it turns out that very
> few targets are still building GCC with the MIT syntax. Switching is
> painless for targets with GAS, and it looks like none of the other
> supported assemblers are using the MIT syntax.
I don't think that GAS used by OpenBSD supports Motorola syntax.
> This is a good opportunity to make the m68k backend more readable.
Remove the Motorola syntax then. I prefer MIT syntax.
Gunther Nikl