| RE: [cdt-dev] ASM content-type and uppercase S |
|
.s is probably slightly more convenient for me but if anyone has a strong feeling one way or the other I would defer to them. My opinion is not that strong just so long as I know which one to use.
___________________________________________
Chris Recoskie Software Designer IDE Frameworks Group Texas Instruments, Toronto
From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Sennikovsky, Mikhail
Hi Manfred,
I agree with you, but since the current content-type framework can not treat extension case correctly, we should decide between .s and .S, and I suppose that .s is more common.. What do others think?
Thank you, Mikhail
From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Neugebauer Manfred
Hallo Mikhail,
My understanding from Gnu and Assembler always was, that assembler source files require an uppercase "S" to be compiled automatically.
Manfred.
Von:
cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] Im Auftrag von Sennikovsky, Mikhail Hi,
I was looking through the managed build test failures now and I'm not sure whether the test benchmark files or CDT is to be updated :-0
The difference in the benchmark files that confuses me is related with the asm sources content type. The benchmark assumes asm sources have a lower case .s extension, while MBS generates makefiles that include uppercase .S files and do not include lowercase .s.
Leo recently posted the below email that met no objections and comments. So what is the consensus on asm sontent types? Should we remove the uppercase S from the asm content type extension list or should we keep it? In case we keep it, files with the lowercase .s extension will not be treated as asm sources. What do you guys think?
Thank you, Mikhail
From:
cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Treggiari, Leo
I’m assuming lowercase “s” files are more common. If not, please reply. Given the current state of the content type support, we have 2 choices with regards to s vs. S.
1. Remove S from the content type. If a user has S files, he will need to add *.S to the project specific content type. The way it is now, he would have to add *.s. 2. Don’t use content types in the assembler tool definition. This would go back to the 2.1 behavior where there is a fixed set of extensions associated with the assembler.
What do people think is best?
Leo
From:
cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lott, Jeremiah
I didn't try the latest build, but I got the latest from head and ran self-hosted. You are correct. Capital "S" files are included. Lowercase "s" files are not.
Jeremiah
|