avr-gcc-list
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [avr-gcc-list] [VOTE] objdump patch


From: Svein E. Seldal
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] [VOTE] objdump patch
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 17:17:40 +0100
User-agent: KMail/1.7.1

On Monday 13 September 2004 17:55, Svein E. Seldal wrote:
> Hi
>
> It seems like there are several preferences on how the new objdump with
> symbols output should look like.
>
> To make a decision more fair (and to do a little experiment), I will now
> arrange a vote on the syntax of the objdump patch. Here are the choices:

I have totally forgotten this vote, and will take action now. It seems that 
the general interest is to have it on the "D" format.

I have changed the patch to use this format, and I have to say that I do not 
think it looks too nice. In fact, I think it looks messy when you have a lot 
of call's with branch instructions, since the symbol is presented in 
different locations.

So I would like everybody to reconsider their decision.


This is an example dump using the voted format:

     52c:       0e 94 4b 16     call    0x2c96 <slave_test>
     530:       88 23           and     r24, r24
     532:       89 f0           breq    .+34            ; 0x556 <main+0xcc>
     534:       0e 94 28 17     call    0x2e50 <led_status>
     538:       88 23           and     r24, r24
     53a:       21 f4           brne    .+8             ; 0x544 <main+0xba>
     53c:       0e 94 30 17     call    0x2e60 <led_set_enable>
     540:       88 23           and     r24, r24
     542:       19 f0           breq    .+6             ; 0x54a <main+0xc0>
     544:       0e 94 96 0e     call    0x1d2c <serial_rx>
     548:       06 c0           rjmp    .+12            ; 0x556 <main+0xcc>
     54a:       0e 94 99 0e     call    0x1d32 <spi_trans>
     54e:       80 e4           ldi     r24, 0x40       ; 64
     550:       90 e0           ldi     r25, 0x00       ; 0
     552:       0e 94 3e 16     call    0x2c7c <set_bit>

While this format IMHO looks better:

     52c:       0e 94 4b 16     call    0x2c96 <slave_test>
     530:       88 23           and     r24, r24
     532:       89 f0           breq    0x556 <main+0xcc>       ; .+34
     534:       0e 94 28 17     call    0x2e50 <led_status>
     538:       88 23           and     r24, r24
     53a:       21 f4           brne    0x544 <main+0xba>       ; .+8
     53c:       0e 94 30 17     call    0x2e60 <led_set_enable>
     540:       88 23           and     r24, r24
     542:       19 f0           breq    0x54a <main+0xc0>       ; .+6
     544:       0e 94 96 0e     call    0x1d2c <serial_rx>
     548:       06 c0           rjmp    0x556 <main+0xcc>       ; .+12
     54a:       0e 94 99 0e     call    0x1d32 <spi_trans>
     54e:       80 e4           ldi     r24, 0x40       ; 64
     550:       90 e0           ldi     r25, 0x00       ; 0
     552:       0e 94 3e 16     call    0x2c7c <set_bit>


Svein


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]