Cleanups for the m68k backend

[Gunther Nikl]

On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 03:23:18PM +0200, Franz Sirl wrote:
> At 15:01 07.07.2003, Gunther Nikl wrote:
> >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.
> 
> No, that's not how it works with open source. If _you_ want to keep a
> rarely necessary feature that makes maintenance a nightmare (see grep
> "#.*include" gcc/config/m68k/*.h|wc -l), it's _your_ task to spend some 
> time on it (namely convert #include's to $tm_file in config.gcc).

  Thats an entirely different issue, isn't it?

> And note that this isn't just an isolated m68k issue, everyone doing
> compilerwide cleanups usually stumbles over m68k :-(.

  Because its still an CC target or why?

  Gunther