gnupic: Re: [gnupic] gputils 0.13.6


Previous by date: 16 May 2008 12:46:53 -0000 Re: [gnupic] Cod file question, Walter Banks
Next by date: 16 May 2008 12:46:53 -0000 Re: [gnupic] gputils 0.13.6, Peter Stuge
Previous in thread: 16 May 2008 12:46:53 -0000 Re: [gnupic] gputils 0.13.6, David Barnett
Next in thread: 16 May 2008 12:46:53 -0000 Re: [gnupic] gputils 0.13.6, Peter Stuge

Subject: Re: [gnupic] gputils 0.13.6
From: "George M. Gallant" ####@####.####
Date: 16 May 2008 12:46:53 -0000
Message-Id: <482D8239.209@comcast.net>

A couple months ago a out out a feeler about local symbols. I received 2
positive and 0 negative replies. Not exactly overwhelming :-( . Since I now
need to merge my local changes into the next rev I would like to submit
to the repository for inclusion after this rev.

To me, local symbols are a must for large projects written in assembler.
  1. No need to think up numerous names
  2. The scope of the label is local to the current routine.
  3. I use symbols of the for "@1" "@6" etc. Assigning the labels 
sequentially
     makes following the code simpler.

The downside is that the code is not usable by MPASM. As I am Linux based
and of the attitude that tools should not be limited to the popular 
offering,
this is not a problem for me.

George

David Barnett wrote:
> 2008/5/15 Rob Pearce ####@####.####
>
>   
>> On Thursday 15 May 2008, David wrote:
>> So how come you added the 2321 but not the 4321?
>>     
>
> Not sure... I just add them on an as-needed basis. It's too much to keep up
> with all the changes otherwise.
>
> Thanks for the patch, anyway. I'll get it in ASAP.
>
> David
>
>   

Previous by date: 16 May 2008 12:46:53 -0000 Re: [gnupic] Cod file question, Walter Banks
Next by date: 16 May 2008 12:46:53 -0000 Re: [gnupic] gputils 0.13.6, Peter Stuge
Previous in thread: 16 May 2008 12:46:53 -0000 Re: [gnupic] gputils 0.13.6, David Barnett
Next in thread: 16 May 2008 12:46:53 -0000 Re: [gnupic] gputils 0.13.6, Peter Stuge


Powered by ezmlm-browse 0.20.