Re: Cleanups for the m68k backend

[Gunther Nikl <gni at gecko dot de>]

On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 08:06:11AM +0200, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> 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.

  No. At the time GCC was ported to AmigaOS NetBSD didn't exist. A first
  port was done in 1990 (1.x). The real port was done 1991/1992 with GCC 2.
  Thus the GCC port predates NetBSD. MIT syntax was the primary m68k assembly
  syntax on unix enviroments. Thus it was quite natural to use it with other
  ports too, especially if you take into account that GAS 1.x did only
  support MIT and GCC being very depended on GAS at that time. Thus MIT
  syntax isn't an anomaly.

>  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. What do you care about
> assembly automatically generated by GCC for as?

  My GAS version doesn't understand Motorola syntax.

  BTW, http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-07/msg00454.html shows that OpenBSD
  is probably using a GAS version that doesn't support Motorola syntax.

  Gunther