inconsistency in alias to undefined symbol

[Alexandre Oliva]

Is it correct that we reject:

.set x, y
.long x

but we accept:

.set x, y

such that x is not even mentioned in the symbol table, even if it's
declared .global or .weak?

I know this is what the code does, and I understand how it does it,
but the question is on whether the silent acceptance of the latter is
just an oversight, rather than something intentional.

Comments?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva         http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}