Re: [perl #45857] [IMCC][RFC] #line vs .line

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 02:31:58AM +0100, Jonathan Worthington wrote:
> Oh, argh, so .line now carries the file *and* the line number?.I wanted  
> it to just carry the line number (the clue's in the name... ;-)) and  
> have .file carry the filename. Then the source you compiled from one  
> file has one ".file 'foo.pir'" directive, and then you just have ".line  
> 42" style things for lines.

Either way works for me -- PCT can generate either without much
difficulty.  It probably makes more sense to have separate .file
and .line directives.  In particular, I wouldn't want to be
repeating the .file annotation information throughout the bytecode!  :-)

Just a reminder that the central issue for PCT and other HLL's
is that the current #line, setline, setfile, etc. instructions
are currently intimately tied to lines of PIR source (RT #43269),
and they probably shouldn't be.

I agree that I don't see a strong need for setting file and
line number dynamically -- at least not at this stage.

Thanks!

Pm