[adtools] Re: Problems building native m68k version of binutils
- From: Gunther Nikl <gni@xxxxxxxx>
- To: adtools@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:58:04 +0100
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:27:44PM +0100, Marcus Comstedt wrote:
>
> Gunther Nikl <gni@xxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Originally GCC (and GAS) only supported MIT syntax and thus the
> > AmigaOS port hat to use it. That never changed and I don't see a
> > need for switching.
>
> How about aesthetical reasons? :-)
Does that matter for a compiler? ;-)
> Frankly I can't think of a reason _not_ to switch, especially as all
> other AmigaOS assemblers (K-SEKA, AsmOne, ArgAsm, Barfly etc etc etc)
> use the correct (Motorola) syntax. MIT syntax is just ugly and confusing.
I don't think it matters much what other assembler accept. FWIW, only
GAS2 supports MOTOROLA syntax. By using MIT syntax its still possible
to use an older version and thats what I do.
> > Looks correct but GAS >= 2.10 barfs on it...
>
> So I suppose the problem wasn't related to MIT vs MOT syntax at all
> then. What bugzilla id does your bugreport have?
There is no bugzilla id since I only sent a mail to bug-binutils@xxxxxxx:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-binutils/2005-11/index.html
BTW, I forgot to add that the tescase works fine for m68k-elf.
Gunther
--
Linux is only free if your time has no value
- Jamie Zawinski
______________________________________________________________________________
Amiga Development tools ML - //www.freelists.org/list/adtools
Homepage...................: http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/adtools
Listserver help............: mailto:adtools-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=HELP
Other related posts:
