inconsistency in alias to undefined symbol

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Oct 26, 2005, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:

>>>> 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).

Even if x is declared .global, .weak, .hidden, etc?  That doesn't
sound right to me.  I'd expect .set x, whatever to introduce a symbol
x in the symbol table or fail, not simply drop it if the definition
turned out to be an undefined symbol.

-- 
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}