Re: gas-mode.el - Comments welcome

[Masatake YAMATO]

Hi,

> > Which architecture are you targeting on? i386?
> 
> It is not bound to a specific architecture (there are just too many of
> them).  Checking of opcodes or even arguments is IMHO better done by
> the assembler.  However, it would be no big deal to highlight specific
> opcodes (the code is already there and used to recognize asm
> directives) or even to check for the correct number of arguments (the
> current parser returns the number of arguments).
> 
> I've postponed this idea, since I feel it wouldn't buy much for me.
> Once you're accustomed to the instruction set (and I've seen a lot of
> exotic ones), getting opcode and number of arguments correct is not
> something that IMHO justifies another level of highlighting (I don't
> think the more's the better when it comes to it).
> 
> I see that it might, however, be a coding aid for the occasional
> programmer and for beginners, so if there's enough interest in it, it
> can be done, preferably by reading the instruction set from some
> external configuration file.

Sorry. My statement in the last mail leads the discussion wrong way.
My interest is highlight register notation, literal notation and
comments. My interest is not highlight specific opcodes.
register notation, literal notation and comments are depends on 
architectures.

> For now, we should stick with the present features and make sure they
> work rock solid.

I see.

BTW, 

I've tried the latest version(1.08).
`indent-for-tab-command' reports "-: Wrong type argument: number-or-marker-p, 
nil"
with following line:

.type __kernel_sigreturn,@function