This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: inconsistency in alias to undefined symbol
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}