This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: inconsistency in alias to undefined symbol
- From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich at novell dot com>
- To: "Alexandre Oliva" <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:08:57 +0200
- Subject: Re: inconsistency in alias to undefined symbol
- References: <orr7a8pzpq.fsf@livre.oliva.athome.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
>>> 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).
>but we accept:
>
>.set x, y
>
>such that x is not even mentioned in the symbol table, even if it's
>declared .global or .weak?
>
>I know this is what the code does, and I understand how it does it,
>but the question is on whether the silent acceptance of the latter is
>just an oversight, rather than something intentional.
So it's actually the other way around - not accepting the former was a
regression that is now fixed...
Jan