Subject: Re: .s vs .S
To: Jason R Thorpe <thorpej@zembu.com>
From: Chris Gilbert <chris@paradox.demon.co.uk>
List: tech-kern
Date: 01/26/2001 23:04:55
On Monday 22 January 2001 4:53 pm, Jason R Thorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 01:37:58PM +0000, Ben Harris wrote:
> > At the moment, sys/arch contains many assembler files, some of them with
> > names ending in ".s" and some in ".S". As far as I can see,
> > emitrules() config(8) emits the same rules for assembling both of these
> > (being invocations of ${NORMAL_S}, but emitsfiles() only puts ".s" files
> > into ${SFILES}, which means that "make depend" doesn't check
> > dependencies for ".S" files.
>
> Ooops, yes. emitsfiles() should include .S files. .S is what GCC uses
> for "assembler with cpp". If we expect to pass an asm file through
> CPP, we should be using .S. (This basically means "always use .S in
> NetBSD".)
I've submitted a PR on this (12051) with a patch that Richard Earnshaw
provided to the arm32 list. I've tested it on arm32 and i386 (and sparc, but
it doesn't have any .S files...) seems to work as desired :)
Cheers,
Chris