This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: macro's and local variables

On 10/18/2012 08:35 PM, Mischa Baars wrote:
On 10/18/2012 05:58 PM, John Reiser wrote:
On 10/18/2012 08:09 AM, Mischa Baars wrote:
Sounds to me, it would be a better plan to make sure that the assembler accepts it '<<' both with and without '.altmacro' :)
I agree that the assembler should accept the full syntax and all operators
for C expressions. Recently I have rued the lack of unary '!' (negation of
truth value, including '!!' as characteristic function {true==>1, false==>0})
and trinary "?:" (conditional evaluation).

Same problem over here, where (taken from function.S)

A i + j, j > 0 ? N + j + 1 : i + 2

is accepted, but the equivalent

A (i + j), ((j > 0) ? (N + j + 1) : (i + 2))

is not accepted as valid expression.


Here, have a look at (my work in progress), where I use the construct above for multiplication of unsigned integers. Meanwhile, I believe that the assembler could use some fine-tuning too at some points.

For example,

addri i + j, ...

does not give the same answer as

addri (i + j), ...


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]