Re: m68k - Dropping the Motorola syntax

[Gunther Nikl <gni at gecko dot de>]

On Thu, Aug 14, 2003 at 06:55:23PM +0200, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> The NetBSD people are upgrading to GCC 3.3.1, therefore I've checked with
> them if they still need the Motorola syntax for m68k.

  Didn't you suggested to remove _MIT_ syntax before? Now you are proposing
  to remove Motorola syntax.

> This message confirms NetBSD would not be a show-stopper in case we decide
> to drop it as we were discussing some time ago.

  The message would indicate that you cannot remove either syntax.

> We already know that OpenBSD still needs it. I'd like to ask them whether
> they would mind doing the extra work needed to resync their old GAS fork
> to bintutils 2.x.

  I don't think that is feasible, the difference between binutils 1.x and
  2.x is too big.

  Gunther

> ----------  Forwarded Message  ----------
> 
> Subject: Re: 2.0 goals
> Date: Thursday 14 August 2003 16:24
> From: Steve Woodford <scw@netbsd.org>
> To: Bernardo Innocenti <bernie@develer.com>
> Cc: netbsd-developers@netbsd.org
> 
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> > Are the m68k ports still using the Motorola assembly syntax in GCC?
> > There was a longish thread last month about dropping it in GCC 3.4
> > and the only two mainstream targets still using it appeared to be
> > NetBSD and OpenBSD.
> 
> The m68k toolchain doesn't get to see any source in Motorola asm syntax.
> 
> AFAIK, the only such source is the kernel's FP support code, which is
> converted to MIT syntax on the fly before being assembled.
> 
> Cheers, steve