[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56F9A973.2040809@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:00:19 +1100
From: Patrick Oppenlander <pattyo.lists@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
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,
__unmapself:
mov r7,#SYS_munmap
svc 0
mov r7,#SYS_exit
svc 0
Is a clearer than:
__unmapself:
mov r7,#91
svc 0
mov r7,#1
svc 0
Especially when approaching the source for the first time.
Patrick
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.
