From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10269 invoked by alias); 18 Aug 2003 20:33:19 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 10211 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2003 20:33:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO develer.com) (151.38.19.110) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Aug 2003 20:33:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 7085 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2003 20:33:09 -0000 Received: from beetle.trilan (?d5seYhtrAmiLu35LDj1l2IyunKx0Gm18?@10.3.3.220) by ns.trilan with SMTP; 18 Aug 2003 20:33:08 -0000 From: Bernardo Innocenti Organization: Develer S.r.l. To: Per Bothner Subject: Re: m68k - Dropping the Motorola syntax Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:33:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.9 Cc: Gunther Nikl , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, binutils@sources.redhat.com References: <200308141855.23393.bernie@develer.com> <200308182048.05394.bernie@develer.com> <3F412ED3.7020504@bothner.com> In-Reply-To: <3F412ED3.7020504@bothner.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200308182233.08696.bernie@develer.com> X-SW-Source: 2003-08/txt/msg00308.txt.bz2 On Monday 18 August 2003 21:53, Per Bothner wrote: > Bernardo Innocenti wrote: > > Of course I meant to remove the least used one, which is... > > err... mumble mumble... the MIT syntax :-) > > The MIT syntax is the one that GNU tools originally supported. > I thought by now gas supports both syntaxes, but are both still > being maintained? All patches for the m68k back-end I've seen so far have been careful to update both the MOTOROLA and MIT syntax. However, my guess is that the MIT syntax could easily get broken without anyone noticing because very few GCC developers can test on the few targets still using it. The version of GCC imported in OpenBSD CVS tree is quite outdated. The NetBSD people are working on a GCC 3.3.1 right now (they've skipped 3.3.0, AFAIK). Unless they've recently changed habits, they're not likely to merge back their patches into mainline. > Another question is: which syntax do our > dis-assemblers (in gdb and binutils) emit? Obviously, our > toolchain should be self-consistent. It's silly for our > compiler to only support Motorola syntax while gdb emits > (only or by default) MIT syntax or vice versa. You're right. Both GDB and objdump emit the MIT syntax by default. Both of them use libbfd, and I believe it should be possible to switch to the Motorola syntax, but I don't know how. Since the Motorola syntax is the GCC default for all Linux targets, I wonder why GDB and objdump don't use it too, at least for consistency. Shouldn't this be fixed? -- // Bernardo Innocenti - Develer S.r.l., R&D dept. \X/ http://www.develer.com/ Please don't send Word attachments - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html