This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [patch] tic4x support in gas
On Wed, Oct 16, 2002 at 10:22:23PM +0200, Svein E. Seldal wrote:
> So if you could please enlighten me why the other is better :)
It's less code.
> BTW, should I use #ifdef TC_TIC4X on
> the code I add, or shouldn't I?
Don't use it.
> constucts invalid? I would guess that the negative value of an flonum is
> ok, but what is the '~' of a flonum (now it behaves like a minus) :) I
> mean, we dont want such sideeffects, right?
Exactly.
> Last, but least, would this code be allowed (please ignore the
> formatting)?
Yes, but remove the #ifdef.
> #ifdef TC_TIC4X
> else if (expressionP->X_op == O_big &&
> expressionP->X_add_number <= 0 && c == '-')
> {
> /* Negative flonum (eg, -1.000e0). */
> if (generic_floating_point_number.sign == '+')
> generic_floating_point_number.sign = '-';
> else if (generic_floating_point_number.sign == 'P')
> generic_floating_point_number.sign = 'N';
> }
> }
> #endif
--
Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre