Re: assembler syntax: low(sym) vs. sym@l

[Michael Meissner <meissner at cygnus dot com>]

On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 10:28:00PM -0700, Greg McGary wrote:
> PPC provides this syntax for specifying 16-bit pieces of a word:
> sym@h, sym@ha, sym@l.  m32r, OTOH, uses this syntax: high(sym),
> shigh(sym), low(sym).
> 
> I need to choose a syntax for a new gas port.  Is there a substantial
> reason (i.e., other than aesthetics) for choosing one over the other?
> I'll likely go with @xx suffixes if there's no good reason to prefer
> the other notation.

You do have to make sure that no matter which syntax you use, you can specify
an addition of a constant, ie:

	(foo+1)@l
or	foo+1@l
or	low(foo+1)

That being said, it is probably slightly easier to parse <ref>@l instead of
low(<ref>).  Note, if you use the low(...) form, you might want to use some
leading character like '%' such as %low(...).

-- 
Michael Meissner, Red Hat, Inc.  (GCC group)
PMB 198, 174 Littleton Road #3, Westford, Massachusetts 01886, USA
Work:	  meissner@redhat.com		phone: +1 978-486-9304
Non-work: meissner@spectacle-pond.org	fax:   +1 978-692-4482