Re: [PATCH RFC] RISC-V: alter the special character used in FAKE_LABEL_NAME

[Nick Clifton <nickc@redhat.com>]

Hi Jan,

> I wonder therefore whether S_IS_LOCAL() and S_IS_EXTERNAL() can't be made
> true opposites of one another (with perhaps one of the two simply expanding
> to a call to the other, inverting the result).

I think that they are actually testing different things.  The way I see it,
S_IS_LOCAL() should return true for any symbol that is not intended to be
seen by anyone disassembling the code.  (Unless of course a command line
has been used to change this behaviour).  So for example labels like .L1
or ^B1.   This does not however mean the same thing as ELF's STB_LOCAL
binding.  Local ELF symbols can be found in disassemblies, should be present
in symbol tables, and represent something intelligible to the user, rather
than something invented by the assembler.

S_IS_EXTERNAL() on the other hand is meant to return true for symbols which
are not only exposed to the disassembler, but which also have visibility
outside of the file which is currently being assembled.  ie in ELF terms
symbols which have a binding other than STB_LOCAL.

That is why, IMHO, the two functions are different.

Cheers
   Nick