From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18618 invoked by alias); 9 May 2003 04:01:16 -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 18604 invoked from network); 9 May 2003 04:01:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO egil.codesourcery.com) (66.92.14.122) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 May 2003 04:01:16 -0000 Received: from zack by egil.codesourcery.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19Dz4M-00042u-00; Thu, 08 May 2003 21:01:14 -0700 To: binutils@sources.redhat.com Cc: hans-peter.nilsson@axis.com Subject: Re: [RFA:] Fix bug with #APP/#NO_APP when using macros. References: <200305090109.h4919osD009188@ignucius.se.axis.com> From: Zack Weinberg Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 04:01:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Ian Lance Taylor's message of "08 May 2003 20:39:04 -0700") Message-ID: <87el38zs39.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00294.txt.bz2 Ian Lance Taylor writes: > It's true that #NO_APP needs to be printed in ASM_FILE_START, but it's > not true that the CRIS target is the only target which does it. > m68k.h does it also. I actually thought that the m68k was the only > target which used #NO_APP, but I see that you used it for the CRIS. > > I take your point, though, which is that though targets other than > CRIS and m68k emit #APP/#NO_APP around assembler statements, it is > ineffective and pointless. And since no one has noticed this up to now, does that mean that there is no real performance benefit to be had from #NO_APP, and we can blow away all the code that emits it from gcc? Or should gcc be changed to emit #NO_APP at file start? zw