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: Ian Lance Taylor <ian at airs dot com>
- To: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich at novell dot com>
- Cc: <drow at false dot org>, <binutils at sources dot redhat dot com>, <gdb at sources dot redhat dot com>
- Date: 07 Mar 2005 11:15:02 -0500
- Subject: Re: gas: should duplicate .macro directives be allowed?
- References: <s22c045e.046@emea1-mh.id2.novell.com>
"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.
Ian