From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16903 invoked by alias); 7 Mar 2005 16:15:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 16840 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2005 16:15:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (205.217.158.180) by sourceware.org with QMTP; 7 Mar 2005 16:15:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 19213 invoked by uid 10); 7 Mar 2005 16:15:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 22545 invoked by uid 500); 7 Mar 2005 16:15:02 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: drow@false.org, binutils@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com, JBeulich@novell.com To: "Jan Beulich" Cc: , , Subject: Re: gas: should duplicate .macro directives be allowed? References: From: Ian Lance Taylor Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:15:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00072.txt.bz2 "Jan Beulich" 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. Ian