That is correct. However, to comply with this *AND* emit an error when a symbol mentioned with .proc wasn't defined before the .endp, more substantial changes to the assembler would be necessary (it would have to keep track of all the symbols mentioned in .proc, which it currently doesn't). I can certainly do such a change, but I think ignoring the name arguments of .endp is a bad idea. Jan >>> davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com 02.02.05 23:50:45 >>> [Hi Jan, I sent this to HJ, assuming that he changed the assembler, but looking through the ChangeLog, I now believe that you added the .endp checking. I see you also added some unwind-directive sanity checking and other useful improvements, which should be very helpful.] >>>>> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 14:19:18 -0800, "H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> said: HJ> The new ia64 assembler caught a few directive bugs. HJ> -END(idirty_bit) HJ> +END(dirty_bit) While I'm in favor of fixing such typos, the Itanium Assembly Language Reference Manual states: "The assembler ignores the name operands of the directive." (page 35 of document 248801-004). In my opinion, a warning might be in place, but a hard error for something that the spec explicitly allows seems like a bad idea to me. --david - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.htmlReceived on Thu Feb 3 03:16:12 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:35 EST