inconsistency in alias to undefined symbol

[Jan Beulich]

>>> Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> 26.10.05 08:19:29 >>>
>Is it correct that we reject:
>
>.set x, y
>.long x

As of yesterday this should be accepted again (as it used to be up to
2.16.1).

>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.

So it's actually the other way around - not accepting the former was a
regression that is now fixed...

Jan