knutson@marconi.sw.mcc.com (Jim Knutson) (03/01/89)
I have become a little uncomfortable with the packed and unpacked assembly files looking the same (externally). My latest bout with this ended up with my building a libc.a with an unpacked setjmp.s. I would like to suggest that we strongly consider a different file extension for packed and unpacked assembly. Perhaps .s and .S or .s and .us. I'm not particular about the choice for the extension. Keeping the file extensions seperate would make dealing with these files without worrying about destroying the source version much easier. Is this reasonable or have I missed something? -- Jim Knutson knutson@mcc.com cs.utexas.edu!milano!knutson
ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) (03/02/89)
In article <2046@marconi.sw.mcc.com> knutson@marconi.sw.mcc.com (Jim Knutson) writes: >I have become a little uncomfortable with the packed and unpacked >assembly files looking the same (externally). My latest bout with >this ended up with my building a libc.a with an unpacked setjmp.s. There is nothing wrong with mixing them. Asld will accept both. All packing does is it replaces about 120 predefined strings with the ASCII codes above 128. This reduces library size and speeds up linking. If you want a list of which strings are replaced, look at the source of libupack.c. The table there gives them in numerical order. These were chosen by compiling a vast amount of C with the MINIX compiler, then running the collected assembly code through sort| uniq -c to see which ones occurred most. Someday there ought to be a proper assembler and linker. Someday ... Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)
allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (03/10/89)
As quoted from <2046@marconi.sw.mcc.com> by knutson@marconi.sw.mcc.com (Jim Knutson): +--------------- | I have become a little uncomfortable with the packed and unpacked | assembly files looking the same (externally). My latest bout with | this ended up with my building a libc.a with an unpacked setjmp.s. +--------------- Seeing as how it's doubtful that we'll ever have a real object file format for PC Minix, why not just give packed assembler files a ".o" extension? ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@ncoast.org uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu Send comp.sources.misc submissions to comp-sources-misc@<backbone> NCoast Public Access UN*X - (216) 781-6201, 300/1200/2400 baud, login: makeuser
allbery@NCOAST.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (03/10/89)
As quoted from <2046@marconi.sw.mcc.com> by knutson@marconi.sw.mcc.com (Jim Knutson): +--------------- | I have become a little uncomfortable with the packed and unpacked | assembly files looking the same (externally). My latest bout with | this ended up with my building a libc.a with an unpacked setjmp.s. +--------------- Seeing as how it's doubtful that we'll ever have a real object file format for PC Minix, why not just give packed assembler files a ".o" extension? ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@ncoast.org uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu Send comp.sources.misc submissions to comp-sources-misc@<backbone> NCoast Public Access UN*X - (216) 781-6201, 300/1200/2400 baud, login: makeuser
HELMER%SDNET.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu (Guy Helmer) (03/11/89)
In a recent article, <allbery@NCOAST.ORG> writes: >As quoted from <2046@marconi.sw.mcc.com> by knutson@marconi.sw.mcc.com (Jim > Knutson): >+--------------- >| I have become a little uncomfortable with the packed and unpacked >| assembly files looking the same (externally). My latest bout with >| this ended up with my building a libc.a with an unpacked setjmp.s. >+--------------- > >Seeing as how it's doubtful that we'll ever have a real object file format >for PC Minix, why not just give packed assembler files a ".o" extension? > >++Brandon Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious, but why aren't as and ld separate in this first place? - Guy Helmer BITNET: HELMER@SDNET uucp: ghelmer@loft386 ...!texbell!loft386!ghelmer
ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) (03/13/89)
In article <10580@louie.udel.EDU> HELMER%SDNET.BITNET@vm1.nodak.edu (Guy Helmer) writes: >Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious, but why aren't as and >ld separate in this first place? Historical reasons. We had a combined asld around for reasons that have nothing to do with MINIX, but a lot to do with other circumstances at the time. It worked fine so it seemed expedient to use it. ACK now has a real loader. Maybe someday I'll get this fixed. Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)