[llvm-dev] [DWARFv5] Assembler syntax for new line-table features

[Eric Christopher via llvm-dev]

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 3:48 PM <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote:

> > > I'm guessing Eric's the most likely to have contacts over in GCC land
> to
> > maybe bridge the gap when talking about assembly syntax across the two.
> > Eric - any ideas how best to negotiate this pseudo-standard? (there's
> > another feature or two I'd like to propose too - at least to standardize
> > what the syntax /should/ be, even if gas doesn't support it immediately)
> >
>

We can do either here if we mostly care about gcc compatibility. And
honestly if you're talking about gas then you should loop in binutils
rather than gcc :)


> > Can we discuss this on the GCC mailing list? I guess if we both use the
> > same syntax it’s more likely others will follow.
>
> My inclination was the dwarf-discuss mailing list, which has members
> from the gcc community and others.  But if people really prefer a
> gcc-specific list, after which we simply impose a decision on everyone
> else, let me know the address.
>
>
Dwarf discuss works fine, or we could just loop in a discussion with Jakub.
Either way. dwarf-discuss is going to be a little more unwieldy just
because of the (in some ways) larger community.


> >
> > > On Mar 29, 2018, at 6:22 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry, I meant specifically the choice for it to be quoted rather than
> a
> > bare hex literal.
> >
> > +1, I’m wondering the same.
>
> I assumed that LLVM's AsmParser could not accept a 128-bit hex literal,
> given that the CodeView equivalent used a quotes.  That's the only reason.
> More digging turns up the .octa directive which demonstrates the quotes
> are not necessary.  I'll take an action item to make the 'md5' option
> take a bare 128-bit number.
>

Thanks.

-eric
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180405/ca71dccb/attachment.html>