Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:00:19 +1100
From: Patrick Oppenlander <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] add powerpc64 port

On 28/03/16 10:37, Rich Felker wrote:
> This is kind of the reason why I was hesitant to add .S support for so
> long. :-)
> I don't want to reject it outright, but the idea of adding .S support
> was just to allow conditional compilation, not to do condensed
> assembly sources that require macro expansion. I can see where the
> code might be unwieldy without this though. Anyone else have opinions?

IMHO .S support is worthwhile just to be able to use constant 
definitions in assembly.

For example,

     mov r7,#SYS_munmap
     svc 0
     mov r7,#SYS_exit
     svc 0

Is a clearer than:

     mov r7,#91
     svc 0
     mov r7,#1
     svc 0

Especially when approaching the source for the first time.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.