From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22109 invoked by alias); 28 Feb 2005 21:26:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 22003 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2005 21:26:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dair.pair.com) (209.68.1.49) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 28 Feb 2005 21:26:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 675 invoked by uid 20157); 28 Feb 2005 21:26:24 -0000 Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 23:47:00 -0000 From: Hans-Peter Nilsson X-X-Sender: hp@dair.pair.com To: Jan Beulich cc: binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: .macro behavior In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00713.txt.bz2 On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Jan Beulich wrote: > >No, thanks, I don't like MMIX being accused of being > >"inconsistent" like that. It *is* consistent - all trailing > >":"s are chopped off. I think I now remember why; it's not > >really related to ":" as separating namespaces, but the main > >reason is so I could run the binutils test-suite! Most tests > >"unportably" assumes that ":" is a label delimiter and not part > >of the label. Maybe I should insiste that tests be rewritten > >and labels there be defined as "label .set ." :-) > > I didn't mean to offend you. None taken! > Do you have an alternative suggestion for > the wording then? Just leaving it the MMIX part would obviously do fine (except of course that I still dislike the functional change as a whole. ;-) brgds, H-P PS. I still see two replies with separate message-id:s from you; your mailer is still misbehaving. I suggest just replying to binutils@sources.redhat.com until it's fixed.