From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15205 invoked by alias); 22 May 2003 15:17:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 15109 invoked from network); 22 May 2003 15:17:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO caip.rutgers.edu) (128.6.236.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 May 2003 15:17:16 -0000 Received: (from ghazi@localhost) by caip.rutgers.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA08004; Thu, 22 May 2003 11:17:16 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 15:37:00 -0000 From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" Message-Id: <200305221517.LAA08004@caip.rutgers.edu> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Why is there a `0' flag used with `%I' in asm_fprintf ? References: <200305221417.KAA23629@caip.rutgers.edu> X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg01977.txt.bz2 List-Id: > Many uses of asm_fprintf in m68k.c and a few in m68hc11.c use the `0' > flag in conjunction with `%I' when calling asm_fprintf. Reading > through the function body of asm_fprintf in final.c, it appears that > the zero is consumed, but has no effect. I.e. `%0I' just spits out > IMMEDIATE_PREFIX unmodified as would plain `%I'. > > So it seems harmless except for the fact that someone reading the code > in m68k.c might think the `0' flag is supposed to do something. > Should all instances of `%0I' be changed to `%I', or have I missed > something? Assuming these are bogus, patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-05/msg01933.html -- Kaveh R. Ghazi ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu