gnupic: Re: [gnupic] local labels
Subject:
Re: [gnupic] local labels
From:
David ####@####.####
Date:
16 May 2008 17:07:59 -0000
Message-Id: <20080516134731.1fdbe1d9@DEEPTHOUGHT.BARNET.net>
On Fri, 16 May 2008 08:46:49 -0400
"George M. Gallant" ####@####.#### wrote:
> To me, local symbols are a must for large projects written in
> assembler.
> ...
> 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.
For me it's a question of priorities. There are many, many rough edges
on gputils that aren't problems in MPASM, etc. I see it as a big jump
breaking compatibility with MPASM, and having a "preprocessor mode" as
Peter mentioned would be a must for me before I would go for it. In
fact, I would really like to have an "output canonical assembly" option
on gpasm, because there are several features I would like to add that
would break compatibility.
I hate to be hard-nosed about it, but I really, really don't want to
make it hard for everyone to create compatible code in the process of
adding features. To me, it's a huge problem having code that can only
be built with one tool. But there are several other options for you:
* keep a patch over the official gputils to allow local labels
* use m4 or some other macro processor on top of gputils
* help create a "preprocessor/canonical output" mode for the
official gpasm
Please understand that I'm not against local labels, we're just not
quite ready yet.
David
