This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: m68k - Dropping the Motorola syntax
- From: Don Lindsay <lindsayd at cisco dot com>
- To: Bernardo Innocenti <bernie at develer dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 15:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: Re: m68k - Dropping the Motorola syntax
> On Monday 18 August 2003 13:42, Gunther Nikl wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 05:14:24PM +0200, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> > >
> > > 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
> > I have read it again and no, there you are suggesting to remove MIT
> > assembler syntax.
> Oh. I must have been on drugs or something when I wrote that!
> Please forgive me, I'm usually much more coherent than that :-)
> ...and I couldn't even check before posting because of that
> sever outage. Argh!
> > MIT: movel a6@(4),d0
> > MOT: move.l 4(a6),d0
> > Now which one is the syntax that you want to get rid off?
> Of course I meant to remove the least used one, which is...
> err... mumble mumble... the MIT syntax :-)
Please don't drop it. We have 8000 lines of handwritten "movel"-style m68k
assembler, which is part of some legacy products that we still support.
(They use m68k-aout-gcc.)