Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery
From: allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/AA)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: cpp vs. m4 for .s files
Message-ID: <1991May3.012859.14305@NCoast.ORG>
Date: 3 May 91 01:28:59 GMT
References: <1991May1.192158.13352@sctc.com> <16031@smoke.brl.mil>
Reply-To: allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/AA)
Followup-To: comp.unix.wizards
Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast)
Lines: 27

As quoted from <16031@smoke.brl.mil> by gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn):
+---------------
| In article <1991May1.192158.13352@sctc.com> scott@sctc.com (Scott Hammond) writes:
| -Unix source tends to use m4 for macro and constant substitution.
| -I was asked why cpp wouldn't work just as well, but I don't know.  Is
| -there any reason one way or the other for choosing m4 vs. cpp for
| -assembly language files?
| 
| Don't use cpp for anything, please.  It need not even exist.
+---------------

...although I have a cpp-to-m4 preprocessor about half-functional (it doesn't
do #if and botches #ifndef ... #else).  (PLEASE don't ask me for it, I've
about 30 projects at the half-to-75%-done phase and at the rate I'm going none
of them will get finished!)

In any case, m4 wins over cpp because m4 is smarter.  You can do things with
m4 that cpp can't even attempt, like decomposing or altering tokens via
translit(), substr(), etc.  (Admittedly, getting the hang of m4 can make one
prematurely gray....)

++Brandon
-- 
Me: Brandon S. Allbery			  Ham: KB8JRR/AA  10m,6m,2m,220,440,1.2
Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG		       (restricted HF at present)
Delphi: ALLBERY				 AMPR: kb8jrr.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88]
uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery       KB8JRR @ WA8BXN.OH