gnupic: Re: [gnupic] gputils 0.13.6
Subject:
Re: [gnupic] gputils 0.13.6
From:
Peter Stuge ####@####.####
Date:
16 May 2008 13:12:56 -0000
Message-Id: <20080516131253.17326.qmail@stuge.se>
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 08:46:49AM -0400, George M. Gallant wrote:
> A couple months ago a out out a feeler about local symbols. I
> received 2 positive and 0 negative replies.
Now 3 positive.
> 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.
Agreed. I really like local symbols in macros.
But nothing will stop developers from just not using local symbols if
they want to stay compatible with MPASM.
Perhaps gpasm could offer a preprocessor mode in the future, where it
outputs processed assembly that MPASM always can build, but that's
not required for adding local symbols I think.
//Peter
