Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!milano!marconi!knutson
From: knutson@marconi.sw.mcc.com (Jim Knutson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Packed versus unpacked assembly: How do you tell?
Message-ID: <2046@marconi.sw.mcc.com>
Date: 1 Mar 89 15:29:25 GMT
Organization: MCC, Austin, TX
Lines: 16

I have become a little uncomfortable with the packed and unpacked
assembly files looking the same (externally).  My latest bout with
this ended up with my building a libc.a with an unpacked setjmp.s.

I would like to suggest that we strongly consider a different file
extension for packed and unpacked assembly.  Perhaps .s and .S or .s
and .us.  I'm not particular about the choice for the extension.
Keeping the file extensions seperate would make dealing with these
files without worrying about destroying the source version much
easier.

Is this reasonable or have I missed something?
-- 
Jim Knutson
knutson@mcc.com
cs.utexas.edu!milano!knutson