From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Lance Taylor To: alan@SPRI.Levels.UniSA.Edu.Au Cc: hjl@varesearch.com, binutils@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: An i386 fp register name patch Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 14:05:00 -0000 Message-id: <19990829210449.4337.qmail@daffy.airs.com> References: X-SW-Source: 1999-08/msg00181.html Date: Sat, 28 Aug 1999 22:34:51 +0930 (CST) From: Alan Modra As you probably know, we already allow spaces in lots of places. eg. mov % al , 5 ( % ebp , % ebx , 1 ) Notice that no spaces are allowed *in* a register name, or for that matter in an instruction mnemonic. eg. mov $1, % a l is illegal. So there is a philosophical question as to whether "st(1)" is really an indivisible register name token or not. You seem to say that the register name is "st" with an index, so therefore we should allow spaces, eg. "st ( 1 )". I'm inclined to say that "st(1)" is really just a name like any other register name, so spaces shouldn't be allowed (or if we do allow spaces here then why not in "% a l" - something I don't like). While philosophically %st(1) is a single register name, I think that given the format of the name we should allow spaces around the parenthesis. ``Be liberal in what you accept.'' On the other hand, I don't think we should accept "% a l". That just seems too error prone. Ian