This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] ia64: accept alternative forms of .pred.rel
- From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich at novell dot com>
- To: <wilson at specifixinc dot com>
- Cc: <binutils at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 09:07:02 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] ia64: accept alternative forms of .pred.rel
>>> James E Wilson <wilson@specifixinc.com> 31.01.05 21:48:41 >>>
>On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 08:32, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Change to allow ias forms of .pred.rel (with @-prefixed
designators).
>
>Neither the Intel Assembly Language Reference Guide nor the Intel
>Assembler User's Guide mentions this syntax. Where did it come from?
>We already have two supported syntaxes. Do we really need a third
one?
>I do agree that using @ operators here makes sense though, as it
makes
>it more similar to how other directives work, but I'd like to know
more
>about why we need it.
I assume this is because these are rather aged; at least I haven't been
able to find recent copies anywhere. These alternative syntaxes where
added fairly late in the Itanium1 time frame I believe (and obviously
for exactly the sake of consistency), and but I don't recall how I
learned about them (perhaps release notes). In any case I would think
one could check with their assembler sources, but the simple observation
that ias accepts these speaks for itself, I guess.
>Otherwise, this looks OK.
I'll wait for your final agreement to commit based on the above.
>> Also
>> eliminate a memory leak in the original code dealing with the
quoted
>> form.
>
>There are 3 places that call demand_copy_C_string, and only one calls
>obstack_free afterwards. The other one is much harder to fix though.
>Curiously, I see that tc-ia64.c is not the only config file that
calls
>demand_copy_C_string, but it is the only one calling obstack_free
>afterwards. It does look like the right thing to do though.
Yes, I saw one other, more difficult to fix place immediately, too. And
I thought of grepping for similar instances, but at this point I didn't
do so. I may at some point, and then also check for (less likely)
demand_copy_string uses.
Jan