This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.

See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: output assembly?

From: "William A. Gatliff" <bgat at billgatliff dot com>
To: David Dyck <dcd at tc dot fluke dot com>
Cc: crossgcc at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 11:54:01 -0500
Subject: Re: output assembly?
References: <20020429081116.A11679@saturn.billgatliff.com> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0204290933410.3071-100000@dd.tc.fluke.com>
Reply-to: bgat at billgatliff dot com

David:


I've found this to be less than universally supported.  I just tried
it on my gcc-3.0.4-based SH toolchain, for example, and got nothing
except mangeld function names in the assembly output--- no source
lines whatsoever.

I've found that objdump consistently does a better job.


Just my $0.02,


b.g.

On Mon, Apr 29, 2002 at 09:35:21AM -0700, David Dyck wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2002 at 08:11 -0500, William A. Gatliff <bgat@billgatliff.co...:
> 
> > Gcc's -S will produce assembly language.  Likewise, you can compile
> > with -c and -g, then run objdump --source on the object file.
> 
> Thanks for the mention of objdump --source (I missed that), but I find using
> the comiler/assembler useful to generate mixed assembly/source.o
> Maybe you will too?
> 
>     gcc -Wa,-adhln,-L -g -c
> 

-- 
Bill Gatliff
bgat@billgatliff.com

------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com

References:
- Re: output assembly?
  - From: William A. Gatliff
- Re: output assembly?
  - From: David Dyck

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]