After reading again, I see your point,
but: what is a one byte literal requiring doubleword alignment?
I only know of doublewords or multiples of doublewords (larger areas),
that require doubleword alignment.
With the relative addressing facility, we have for the first time the
possibility that areas of odd length require alignment on even
addresses, because the addressing relative to the PSW counts
halfwords, not bytes. This is new, and this requires a new class
of literals in the literal pool with special alignment requirements.
At least, that's my opinion.
The sorting of the literal pools by lengths multiple of 8, of 4, of 2
is IMHO done already since the very first days of ASSEMBLER,
to do proper alignment of the literals (even if the literals don't have
the appropriate type specifier) and to avoid padding bytes.
Kind regards
Bernd
Edward Jaffe schrieb:
Bernd Oppolzer wrote:
I believe that literals could be sorted by alignment requirement
instead of length, this way minimizing the needed padding bytes.
Using this scheme, one byte literals requiring doubleword alignment will
require seven padding bytes each. It would be better if literals without
alignment requirements could be somehow placed into these voids.
