gnupic: Re: [gnupic] local labels
Subject:
Re: [gnupic] local labels
From:
David ####@####.####
Date:
16 May 2008 18:18:08 -0000
Message-Id: <20080516145736.58a5cb58@DEEPTHOUGHT.BARNET.net>
On Fri, 16 May 2008 17:49:36 +0000
####@####.#### wrote:
> David,
>
> 1. We already have local labels in the macros
Those are supported in MPASM.
> 2. You don't have to use them
No, but you'll have to "clean up" your code (or someone else's) to port
or share it. I just want there to be an automatic "cleanup" so we
don't have people locked in.
> 4. As for not being ready yet, I'm supplying the code.
I meant I don't think we're ready to break compatibility until we have
an option to convert incompatible code to canonical code. For local
labels, that would mean mangling them to include the previous global
label. If you want to provide *that* code, I'll include local labels
right away, but I think that the changes will need to be deep in the
parser. It *will* fit in my plan for 0.14.0.
You can certainly go ahead and upload the patch on the gputils patch
tracker, where anyone's welcome to use it, and I'll include it when the
system is ripe for it.
David
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: David ####@####.####
> > 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
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> > For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
> >
>
