On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:48:08 +0200 Bernd Oppolzer <bernd.oppol...@t-online.de> wrote:
:>I believe that literals could be sorted by alignment requirement :>instead of length, this way minimizing the needed padding bytes. :>That is, multiples of 8 first, then multiples of 4, then multiples of :>2, then odd lenghts, that need to be aligned on even addresses :>because of relative addressing, then "true" odds, that dont have :>this special requirement. To me it would be a lot simpler to have an assembler option which specifies the minimum alignment for each literal. It would default as is (byte), but could be halfword/word/doubleword/quadword. Much easier than sorting them and interleaving the odd length non-LARL referenced byte aligned items between the odd length LARL referenced byte aligned items. :>Edward Jaffe schrieb: :>> It does seem like it could be useful if literals inherited the :>> worst-case alignment requirements imposed by the instruction operand(s) :>> that reference them. But, doing so could introduce some new issues. :>> Literals are currently sorted by length. Aligning short literals on a :>> halfword, fullword, doubleword or quadword boundary might require the :>> assembler to insert a lot of "filler" bytes in the literal pool. Would :>> that be acceptable? :>> -- Binyamin Dissen <bdis...@dissensoftware.com> http://www.dissensoftware.com Director, Dissen Software, Bar & Grill - Israel Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me, you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain. I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems, especially those from irresponsible companies.
