[PATCH 4/4] Revert "Arm: correct macro use in gas testsuite"

[Jan Beulich]

On 16.08.2024 14:35, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 5:31 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 16.08.2024 13:33, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2024 at 4:23 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 14.08.2024 18:54, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>>> This reverts commit cfa18744d435b55bbbbc5ef1ae1df67e84aa1777.
>>>>>
>>>>> commit 6ae8a30d44f016cafb46a75843b5109316eb1996
>>>>> Author: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>>>>> Date:   Fri Aug 9 11:59:31 2024 +0200
>>>>>
>>>>>     gas: have scrubber retain more whitespace
>>>>>
>>>>> has been reverted to fix PR gas/32073.
>>>>
>>>> This is the one I said should rather stay in any event. Even for the
>>>> other three (plus a fourth one that you didn't revert) my earlier
>>>> indication was that they _may_ want reverting, not that they need to
>>>> be reverted right away. I think we first want to have a clear picture
>>>> on what the new behavior is going to be. After all it's quite
>>>> possible that for ambiguous cases we will warn people (e.g. telling
>>>> to better switch to comma-separated arguments).
>>>>
>>>> Plus, if I may ask: Who did approve these going in? I think reverts
>>>> can hardly ever count as "obvious".
>>>
>>> Many assembler testcases came from real usages.
>>
>> Especially on Arm (32-bit and 64-bit) afaict many macro uses are to reduce
>> the volume of the testcases, not because respective code would be found in
>> "real" use cases.
>>
>>>  Make working
>>> testcases as error will potentially break existing applications.   These
>>> tests shouldn't be changed to begin with.
>>
>> This Arm one wasn't working right, as explained in the description of that
>> patch. I don't think we should deliberately test broken uses of macros.
> 
> That is your opinion.  I don't think we should change working tests to error
> since we don't know if they came from real applications.

Funny. How can "this macro is broken" be an opinion? It is a fact, and even
if a real application used something like that, I wouldn't fear breaking it.
What I'm accepting to (try to) be more careful with are proper macro uses.

Jan