From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-38423-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 4253 invoked by alias); 2 Mar 2005 15:04:38 -0000
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 3836 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2005 15:04:27 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO emea1-mh.id2.novell.com) (195.33.99.129)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 2 Mar 2005 15:04:27 -0000
Received: from EMEA1-MTA by emea1-mh.id2.novell.com
	with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 02 Mar 2005 15:04:26 +0100
Message-Id: <s225d5fa.099@emea1-mh.id2.novell.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 15:04:00 -0000
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com>
To: <ian@airs.com>
Cc: <binutils@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: .macro behavior
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00073.txt.bz2

>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...

Jan