This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Cleanups for the m68k backend


On Monday 07 July 2003 15:35, Gunther Nikl wrote:

 > >  Using the MIT syntax on the Amiga is innatural: any native Amiga
 > > assembler has been using the Motorola syntax exclusively.
 >
 >   I don't use "amiga" assembly sources with GCC. I use GCC to compile
 > C sources.

 I think this anomaly of using MIT on Amiga has come to be because
GeekGadgets (*) was initially porting sources from NetBSD. At that time,
NetBSD was using the MIT syntax on m68k targets, and nobody ever had
the guts to switch.

Besides, the Motorola syntax used by GAS looks is quite different from
the Amiga syntax (they don't use '%' prefixes for registers, for example).

(*) for readers who don't know the Amiga, GeekGadgets is a UNIX-like
environment for the Amiga started by Fred Fish, much like Cygwin.


 > >  By the way, according to GAS documentation it shouldn't be a
 > > problem:
 >
 >   Which version?

I'm using binutils-2.14.90.0.4 on the ColdFire. I don't know when
the Motorola syntax has been introduced, but it must be almost ten
years ago because Linux-m68k has always been using that, AFAIK.

I happen to still have a backup of my old Amiga work partition
with GeekGadgets installed on it. My version of GAS was 2.9.1.
I also have the AmigaGuide version of the original texinfo manual.
It still contains the same section I've quoted before:

   The standard Motorola syntax for this chip differs from the syntax
   already discussed (see @{"Syntax" link "M68K-Syntax"}).  @{b}as@{ub}
   can accept Motorola syntax for operands, even if MIT syntax is used
   for other operands in the same instruction.  The two kinds of syntax
   are fully compatible.

 So it seems it's not a problem for the Amiga. Now the only reason to
keep the MIT syntax alive is that you do like it. But even so, you could
still use MIT for your hand written assembly. What do you care about
assembly automatically generated by GCC for as? Do you read it _that_
often?

-- 
  // Bernardo Innocenti - Develer S.r.l., R&D dept.
\X/  http://www.develer.com/

Please don't send Word attachments - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]