Subject: Re: .s vs .S
To: Ben Harris <bjh21@cam.ac.uk>
From: Jason R Thorpe <thorpej@zembu.com>
List: tech-kern
Date: 01/22/2001 08:53:18
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 01:37:58PM +0000, Ben Harris wrote:

 > At the moment, sys/arch contains many assembler files, some of them with
 > names ending in ".s" and some in ".S".  As far as I can see,
 > emitrules() config(8) emits the same rules for assembling both of these
 > (being invocations of ${NORMAL_S}, but emitsfiles() only puts ".s" files
 > into ${SFILES}, which means that "make depend" doesn't check dependencies
 > for ".S" files.

Ooops, yes.  emitsfiles() should include .S files.  .S is what GCC uses
for "assembler with cpp".  If we expect to pass an asm file through
CPP, we should be using .S.  (This basically means "always use .S in
NetBSD".)

 > FWIW, it looks like every port at the moment treats both of them as
 > assembler-with-cpp, which would make standardising on ".S" seem sensible.
 > 
 > Thoughts?

-- 
        -- Jason R. Thorpe <thorpej@zembu.com>