This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: m68k - Dropping the Motorola syntax
On Friday 15 August 2003 10:04, Gunther Nikl wrote:
> 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.
No way, I've always wanted to drop the Motorola syntax because it's
used only by a few non-mainstream targets. But you're the second person
pointing it out, so maybe I've not explained myself clearly :-)
sources.redhat.com seems to be down right now, but *should* be the
correct link to my initial argument:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-07/msg00390.html
> > 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.
Well, they confirmed that NetBSD has been using the MIT syntax
exclusively for several years, which should clear any doubt they
would miss it.
> > 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.
:-(
I wonder how many changes are needed to support the non-executable
stack in ld and as. Some people were arguing for adding this feature
in Linux until Linus Torvalds objected strongly. If memory helps me,
I think the idea had been already developed to a working stage and
patches submitted.
--
// 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