[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [avr-gcc-list] objdump patch
From: |
Erik Christiansen |
Subject: |
Re: [avr-gcc-list] objdump patch |
Date: |
Tue, 7 Sep 2004 15:46:03 +1000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Mon, Sep 06, 2004 at 04:39:27PM +0200, Svein E. Seldal wrote:
> The snippet below shows the changes that I suggest. In short:
>
> 20c: 02 c0 rjmp .+4 ; 0x212
>
> becomes
>
> 20c: 02 c0 rjmp 0x212 <.do_copy_data_start> ; .+4
>
>
> Does this look nice? Its downside is that it kind of ruins the
> right-aliged row of ';' and makes the output more cluttered. But on the
> upside, it proves it faster and simpler to review code.
>
> What I really want to discuss is if we do need the "; .+4" comment in
> the example above or not. I dont think I will ever need that
> information, but I'm humble if anyone else protests.
Svein,
The symbol beneficially replaces the relative reference, both in an
abstract sense and in practical use, doesn't it? I'd very definitely
spend my 2 cents on your clutter reduced alternative, and increase the
separation of the symbol, for readability.
20c: 02 c0 rjmp 0x212 <.do_copy_data_start>
Where no symbol is available, I suppose we end up with
20c: 02 c0 rjmp 0x212 ; .+4
Right alignment is then not bad at all, is it?
Erik
- [avr-gcc-list] objdump patch, Svein E. Seldal, 2004/09/06
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] objdump patch,
Erik Christiansen <=
- [avr-gcc-list] [VOTE] objdump patch, Svein E. Seldal, 2004/09/13
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] [VOTE] objdump patch, Richard Urwin, 2004/09/13
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] [VOTE] objdump patch, Christian Ludlam, 2004/09/13
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] [VOTE] objdump patch, Bruce D. Lightner, 2004/09/13
- [avr-gcc-list] Re: [VOTE] objdump patch, Volkmar Dierkes, 2004/09/13
- Re: [avr-gcc-list] [VOTE] objdump patch, gouy yann, 2004/09/13