From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23360 invoked by alias); 2 Mar 2005 15:20:10 -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 23262 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2005 15:20:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (205.217.158.180) by sourceware.org with QMTP; 2 Mar 2005 15:20:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 6271 invoked by uid 10); 2 Mar 2005 15:19:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 7692 invoked by uid 500); 2 Mar 2005 15:19:51 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: binutils@sources.redhat.com, JBeulich@novell.com To: "Jan Beulich" Cc: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: .macro behavior References: From: Ian Lance Taylor Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 15:20:00 -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/msg00074.txt.bz2 "Jan Beulich" writes: > >I'm reading this, but I don't have any particular comment. The > >current behaviour was an accident of implementation. I think Steve > >and Judy wrote gasp over a weekend once, and I didn't change the > >behaviour when I reworked it into gas. But I don't really have an > >opinion on what the right behaviour should be. > > So if neither you nor anyone else of the general maintainers has an > opion here (presumably because macros are rarely used, and even if > they're used then only to do simple tings), how should I proceed? I > wouldn't want to maintain this change outside of the tree... I suppose I'm assuming that Nick will either approve or reject the patch. Ian