From: Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com>
To: hp@bitrange.com
Cc: schwab@suse.de, binutils@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: demand_empty_rest_of_line and ignore_rest_of_line
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 00:51:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87d65va8gd.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m3zn90gaso.fsf@gossamer.airs.com> (Ian Lance Taylor's message of "24 Apr 2004 20:29:11 -0400")
Ian Lance Taylor <ian@wasabisystems.com> writes:
> Can you give some examples of how pre-scrubbed code is harder to read?
For me, it really is all about the whitespace. Here's a fragment of
x86 assembly as currently generated -
main:
pushl %ebp
movl $1, %eax
movl %esp, %ebp
pushl %ebx
subl $36, %esp
andl $-16, %esp
movl %eax, 4(%esp)
movl $13, (%esp)
call signal
movl $17, (%esp)
movl $1, %eax
movl %eax, 4(%esp)
call signal
and as it would be if prescrubbed:
main:
pushl %ebp
movl $1,%eax
movl %esp,%ebp
pushl %ebx
subl $36,%esp
andl $-16,%esp
movl %eax,4(%esp)
movl $13,(%esp)
call signal
movl $17,(%esp)
movl $1,%eax
movl %eax,4(%esp)
call signal
The denser packing, and the lack of a nicely lined up arguments field,
mean substantially more mental effort just to see what it's doing.
zw
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-04-26 0:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-03-17 16:36 Nathan Sidwell
2004-03-17 16:43 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2004-03-17 16:49 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2004-03-18 10:29 ` Nathan Sidwell
2004-03-18 13:15 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2004-04-23 23:15 ` Andreas Schwab
2004-04-24 17:36 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2004-04-24 17:57 ` Andreas Schwab
2004-04-24 18:26 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2004-04-24 19:22 ` Andreas Schwab
2004-04-24 21:31 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2004-04-24 21:33 ` Andreas Schwab
2004-04-24 23:25 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2004-04-24 23:37 ` Andreas Schwab
2004-04-25 0:03 ` Zack Weinberg
2004-04-25 0:22 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2004-04-26 0:28 ` Zack Weinberg
2004-04-26 0:58 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2004-04-26 2:14 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2004-04-25 23:35 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2004-04-26 0:51 ` Zack Weinberg [this message]
2004-04-26 2:46 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2004-04-26 3:13 ` Zack Weinberg
2004-04-26 14:16 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2004-04-26 14:22 ` Andreas Schwab
2004-04-26 14:34 ` Richard Earnshaw
2004-04-26 15:29 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2004-04-26 19:26 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2004-04-26 19:42 ` Kai Henningsen
2004-04-26 19:45 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2004-04-26 20:04 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2004-04-27 1:32 ` Zack Weinberg
2004-04-27 2:02 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2004-04-27 2:38 ` Zack Weinberg
2004-04-27 2:35 ` Alan Modra
2004-04-27 3:13 ` Zack Weinberg
2004-04-27 4:33 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2004-04-27 5:19 ` Zack Weinberg
2004-04-27 6:52 ` Ian Lance Taylor
2004-04-27 11:43 ` Richard Earnshaw
2004-04-27 2:47 ` Ian Lance Taylor
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87d65va8gd.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com \
--to=zack@codesourcery.com \
--cc=binutils@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=hp@bitrange.com \
--cc=schwab@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).