Re: gas: should duplicate .macro directives be allowed?

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 11:15:02AM -0500, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> "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.

While I'm wishing, it would be nice if the documentation mentioned
.purgem somewhere from .macro.  I spent a while trying to figure out if
there was a right way to do this from the manual, and did not come
across .purgem until Jan mentioned it.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC