This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: New C parser [patch]

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 14:22:16 -0700
Subject: Re: New C parser [patch]
References: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0410222353190.30813@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <Pine.LNX.4.61.0410242017170.7018@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <873c02e46k.fsf@codesourcery.com> <20041027184957.GB18849@redhat.com> <87k6tc3r0u.fsf@codesourcery.com>

On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 12:22:25PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> ... it's still a
> layering violation to be calling assembly output routines directly
> from the parser.

Granted.  Just wanted to nip the "it's not useful" thought in the bud.

Personally, I think there should be no ordering guarantees between any
top-level objects.  If you need particular ordering from your assembly,
then you should write one top-level asm and not two.

r~

Follow-Ups:
- Re: New C parser [patch]
  - From: Alan Modra

References:
- New C parser [patch]
  - From: Joseph S. Myers
- Re: New C parser [patch]
  - From: Joseph S. Myers
- Re: New C parser [patch]
  - From: Zack Weinberg
- Re: New C parser [patch]
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: New C parser [patch]
  - From: Zack Weinberg

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