From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cvs.linux-mips.org (eddie.linux-mips.org [148.251.95.138]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1EEB3940CDA for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 01:42:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: (from localhost user: 'macro', uid#1010) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S23993112AbgCQBmfZXgC3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Mar 2020 02:42:35 +0100 Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 01:42:35 +0000 (GMT) Sender: "Maciej W. Rozycki" From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Paul Hua cc: binutils@sourceware.org, syq@debian.org Subject: Re: [PATCH][MIPS][Committed] Fix PR/gas 25539 fix_loongson3_llsc: fix when target has multi labels In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.0 required=5.0 tests=KAM_DMARC_STATUS, KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY, KAM_SHORT, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: binutils@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Binutils mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 01:42:39 -0000 On Fri, 28 Feb 2020, Paul Hua wrote: > When there is multi-labels on the same insn, the current code > will take care about the last one. it may cause that no sync > is added at the target. Why do you need to set an arbitrary limit as to the number of labels handled (MAX_LABELS_SAME)? This handles user-supplied input, so we can't predict how many there will be at most. What happens if the limit has been exceeded? We should avoid setting unnecessary limits, as per our coding standards: . Maciej