From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16918 invoked by alias); 20 Sep 2005 21:26:52 -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 16875 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Sep 2005 21:26:40 -0000 Received: from ns.suse.de (HELO mx1.suse.de) (195.135.220.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 21:26:40 +0000 Received: from Relay1.suse.de (mail2.suse.de [195.135.221.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65BD6EE51; Tue, 20 Sep 2005 23:26:38 +0200 (CEST) From: Andreas Schwab To: Kumar Gala Cc: Alan Modra , binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: common assembly code between ppc32 & ppc64 References: <930FB6D0-944A-486B-A060-C63D4FC7E141@freescale.com> X-Yow: YOW!! Now I understand advanced MICROBIOLOGY and th' new TAX REFORM laws!! Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:29:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <930FB6D0-944A-486B-A060-C63D4FC7E141@freescale.com> (Kumar Gala's message of "Tue, 20 Sep 2005 15:34:52 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2005-09/txt/msg00242.txt.bz2 Kumar Gala writes: > Is there any magic to handle ".llong" vs ".long" that we could > possibly use to reduce the duplication between these two code fragments. #ifndef __powerpc64__ .macro pointer val .long \val .endm .macro align_p .align 2 .endm #else .macro pointer val .llong \val .endm .macro align_p .align 3 .endm #endif Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5 "And now for something completely different."