Cleanups for the m68k backend

[Gunther Nikl]

On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:50:06PM +0200, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> On Monday 07 July 2003 13:14, Gunther Nikl wrote:
> 
>  > On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 11:24:43AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>  > > Note that GAS accepts both syntaxes, so if every supported target is
>  > > using GAS then we can rip it out immediately.
>  >
>  >   Not every GAS version supports it. Why removing MIT syntax? The same
>  > could be demanded for Motorola syntax...
> 
>  Maintaing both syntaxes adds complexity

  Yes, but not that much.

> and makes every change to the m68k back-end harder to write and test.

  No. If you don't like the #idefs then make MOTOROLA a 0/1 define and use
  real if()s.

> After the last round of obsolete target removal, it turns out that very
> few targets are still building GCC with the MIT syntax. Switching is
> painless for targets with GAS, and it looks like none of the other
> supported assemblers are using the MIT syntax.

  I don't think that GAS used by OpenBSD supports Motorola syntax.

> This is a good opportunity to make the m68k backend more readable.

  Remove the Motorola syntax then. I prefer MIT syntax.

  Gunther Nikl