This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: gas: should duplicate .macro directives be allowed?
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Cc: JBeulich at novell dot com
- Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 11:19:17 -0500
- Subject: Re: gas: should duplicate .macro directives be allowed?
- References: <s22c045e.046@emea1-mh.id2.novell.com> <m3fyz7l9fd.fsf@gossamer.airs.com>
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 11:15:02AM -0500, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com> writes:
>
> > Yes, the change was deliberate, and I don't think it'd be wise to revert
> > it (it's simply dangerous considering that you might have these
> > collisions resulting from two include files, each of which relies on
> > their definition of the respective macro). Instead, if you need to
> > override a previous macro definition (and know what you're doing), you
> > can use easily use .purgem before the new definition (really, I'd rather
> > recommend not to to catch the collision). Jan
>
> That seems more or less reasonable to me, but Daniel is correct that
> this change must be mentioned in NEWS. It should be documented
> somewhere in as.texinfo as well, if it is not already.
While I'm wishing, it would be nice if the documentation mentioned
.purgem somewhere from .macro. I spent a while trying to figure out if
there was a right way to do this from the manual, and did not come
across .purgem until Jan mentioned it.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC