This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: RFC: gas .warning "msg" and .error "msg" directives?
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hans-peter dot nilsson at axis dot com>
- To: raeburn at raeburn dot org
- Cc: hans-peter dot nilsson at axis dot com, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:18:17 +0100
- Subject: Re: RFC: gas .warning "msg" and .error "msg" directives?
> From: Ken Raeburn <raeburn@raeburn.org>
> Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 01:47:10 -0500
> Why not make it default to something that actually describes the
> situation, e.g., ".error directive invoked in source file".
> Conceptually, you could also make the message be required -- for .error
> that just means you print a slightly different message if it's omitted
> ("missing .error parameter" for example), the practical difference is
> whether .warning without a message would be an error or not. :-)
All valid points. Consider them merged with my suggestion, with:
An .error without a string should be compatible with ".err" and
just emit ".error directive invoked in source file". A .warning
should just warn, with the default message being...you guessed
it ".warning directive invoked in source file".
brgds, H-P