On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 2:00 AM, Patrick R. Michaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 02:31:58AM +0100, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
> > Oh, argh, so .line now carries the file *and* the line number?.I wanted
> > it to just carry the line number (the clue's in the name... ;-)) and
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 03:10:47AM +0100, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
> Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
>> Just a reminder that the central issue for PCT and other HLL's
>> is that the current #line, setline, setfile, etc. instructions
>> are currently intimately tied to lines of PIR source (RT #43269),
Patrick R. Michaud wrote:
Either way works for me -- PCT can generate either without much
difficulty. It probably makes more sense to have separate .file
and .line directives. In particular, I wouldn't want to be
repeating the .file annotation information throughout the bytecode! :-)
Just a r
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 02:31:58AM +0100, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
> Oh, argh, so .line now carries the file *and* the line number?.I wanted
> it to just carry the line number (the clue's in the name... ;-)) and
> have .file carry the filename. Then the source you compiled from one
> file
Klaas-Jan Stol wrote:
Minor detail:
.file does not actually exist, except in PIRC.
Well, I guess we can add it...
I do not have a strong preference for adding it. Pro: it's a bit clearer than .line, as
.line indicates, ehm, the "line" :-) Specifying a filename by .line is a bit
weird. Con:
On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 10:08 PM, Jonathan Worthington
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Klaas-Jan Stol via RT wrote:
>
>> On Thu Dec 13 04:35:13 2007, pmichaud wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Sat Sep 29 08:57:28 2007, kjs wrote:
>>>
>>>
A few months ago, the "#line" directive was implemented.
I'm wo
Klaas-Jan Stol via RT wrote:
On Thu Dec 13 04:35:13 2007, pmichaud wrote:
On Sat Sep 29 08:57:28 2007, kjs wrote:
A few months ago, the "#line" directive was implemented.
I'm wondering what the reason was why it looks like a comment (as #
will
start a comment).
Is there an
On Sat Sep 29 08:57:28 2007, kjs wrote:
> A few months ago, the "#line" directive was implemented.
>
> I'm wondering what the reason was why it looks like a comment (as # will
> start a comment).
> Is there any reason to not replace this by ".line"? A directive typically
> tells the assembler/comp
