From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-37996-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 16650 invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2005 12:11:48 -0000
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 16620 invoked from network); 16 Feb 2005 12:11:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 16 Feb 2005 12:11:44 -0000
Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j1GCBhbE012098;
	Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:11:43 -0500
Received: from pobox.surrey.redhat.com (pobox.surrey.redhat.com [172.16.10.17])
	by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j1GCBhO27590;
	Wed, 16 Feb 2005 07:11:43 -0500
Received: from [172.31.0.98] (vpnuser4.surrey.redhat.com [172.16.9.4])
	by pobox.surrey.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j1GCBfMR024741;
	Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:11:41 GMT
Message-ID: <42133AF4.2070602@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:54:00 -0000
From: Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: clm@cm00re.com
CC: binutils@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH]  Additional TC_EQUAL_IN_INSN check
References: <200502151337.j1FDb4u2012330@mx3.redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <200502151337.j1FDb4u2012330@mx3.redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00368.txt.bz2

Hi Catherine,

> This patch adds an argument to TC_EQUAL_IN_INSN so that the current string
> can be checked.

Why is this needed ?  Do you have a port where the current semantics for 
TC_EQUAL_IN_INSN are insufficient ?  [The string 's' can be deduced from 
  input_line_pointer, so why pass it as an extra argument ?]

> It also adds an additional check for TC_EQUAL_IN_INSN in
> read_a_source_file.  

Again - why is is this necessary ?  Couldn't the if-statement be 
rearranged so that there was only one invocation of TC_EQUAL_IN_INSN ?

Cheers
   Nick