Re: demand_empty_rest_of_line and ignore_rest_of_line

[Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>]

Ian Lance Taylor <ian@wasabisystems.com> writes:

> Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com> writes:
>
>> The denser packing, and the lack of a nicely lined up arguments field,
>> mean substantially more mental effort just to see what it's doing.
>
> I'd say you're making a mountain out of a molehill.  You're condemning
> the entire world to have slower compiles because you don't want to
> work a little bit harder to read assembler code, nor to write a sed
> script to do beautification, nor to use the -fverbose-asm option. 

The conversation so far was mainly about the appearance of the
generated assembly, which I agree is minor, but I have another
reason for not liking #NO_APP, which is that it adds a nontrivial
amount of complexity to GCC's assembly output logic.  I would like
if we could make it all just go away.

> For that matter, this patch to gas would accept your example input in
> #NO_APP mode.

This is the sort of thing I was thinking about when I said 'let's
spend time making GAS go faster instead' -- although, if I were in
charge of doing that, I'd try to collapse as much of the parsing logic
together as possible, rather than tweaking all the tc-* parsers.

zw