Date:	Fri, 02 Mar 2001 16:55:28 +0200
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	JT Williams <jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org>
Message-Id:	<3405-Fri02Mar2001165527+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.6
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<20010302082021.C9404@kendall.sfbr.org> (message from JT Williams
	on Fri, 2 Mar 2001 08:20:21 -0600)
Subject:	Re: djasm patch #5
References:	<20010301154709 DOT B8889 AT kendall DOT sfbr DOT org> <2593-Fri02Mar2001121352+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <20010302082021 DOT C9404 AT kendall DOT sfbr DOT org>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2001 08:20:21 -0600
> From: JT Williams <jeffw AT darwin DOT sfbr DOT org>
> -: 
> -: Is it possible to add a compatibility option which would revert
> -: sh[lr]d to their old meaning?  DJGPP sources are not the only users of
> -: djasm, although that's what djasm was originally invented for.  I
> -: think we should make a good-faith effort not to break
> -: back-compatibility without leaving some escape hatch.
> 
> DJ, can you recall if you implemented the double-precision shift
> in djasm because you actually used it in a specific application?
> 
> My *impression* from studying the source is that when you implemented
> sh[lr]d, you realized there was a name conflict and so you didn't
> go any further.  You also didn't worry about it because you had
> already implemented the instruction set you needed.  But that's just my
> hypothetical reconstruction of events, and it may have little to do with
> reality [:-/

IMHO, we should try not to break compatibility no matter why did DJ
implement these mnemonics.

- Raw text -