This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: RFC: designated initializer vs. long long for i386 assembler
- From: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- To: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:05:08 -0700
- Subject: Re: RFC: designated initializer vs. long long for i386 assembler
- References: <20070212155323.GA8495@lucon.org> <20070213232407.GB15831@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20070214001412.GA30144@lucon.org> <20070214015134.GA8541@bubble.grove.modra.org> <20070214020138.GA30518@lucon.org>
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 06:01:38PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 12:21:34PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 04:14:12PM -0800, H. J. Lu wrote:
> > > I need much more than 2 bits, which won't fit in the current
> > > 32bit int.
> >
> > Then I suggest adding another field. I don't think we can force
> > people to use a C99 compiler to build binutils.
>
> Adding another field will lead to massive changes to x86 assembler.
> I will use long long if C99 feature isn't desirable.
>
> BTW, I compared long long vs int. There is not much slow down in
> assembler.
We can use designated initializer in include/opcode/i386.h. We put a
generated copy of it, i386-inst.h, in gas/config, which doesn't
use designated initializer. tc-i386.c will include i386-inst.h
instead of opcode/i386.h. We will put a tool in gas to generate
gas/config/i386-inst.h from include/opcode/i386.h. We can require
that such a tool has to be compiled with a C99 compiler.
H.J.