This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: demand_empty_rest_of_line and ignore_rest_of_line
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
- To: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 11:43:30 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: demand_empty_rest_of_line and ignore_rest_of_line
- References: <40587E7B.10705@codesourcery.com>
On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> what is the intended difference between demand_empty_rest_of_line and
> ignore_rest_of_line?
>From memory and trigged by the names (i.e. not cheating and
looking at the code ;-) one is supposed to issue an error
(demand_*) and the other (ignore_*) should just skip to the next
line (and update whatever counters and such). If they don't,
I'd argue it's confusing enough that a change is warranted.
> which implies to me that ignore_ROL should be silent.
It's not?
> Also, what do people think about demand_empty_ROL issuing an error?
It doesn't?
:-)
> IMHO, if the syntax requires no more stuff, it's an error if there is
> more stuff.
>
> Would a patch which made ignore_ROL silent and demand_empty_ROL issue
> an error be acceptable?
It's used by config/tc-* so I suggest regression checking enough
targets to cover all target uses of demand_* and ignore_*.
brgds, H-P