From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19134 invoked by alias); 2 May 2005 08:25:11 -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 18888 invoked from network); 2 May 2005 08:25:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO emea1-mh.id2.novell.com) (195.33.99.129) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 2 May 2005 08:25:04 -0000 Received: from EMEA1-MTA by emea1-mh.id2.novell.com with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 02 May 2005 09:25:03 +0200 Message-Id: Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 08:25:00 -0000 From: "Jan Beulich" To: Subject: QUOTES_IN_INSN Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00030.txt.bz2 Currently, only ia64 defines this. In order to facilitate passing strings t= o macros I think the code protected by this needs to be generally enabled, = otherwise stuff like .macro m str .asciz "\str" .endm m "foo;bar" doesn't work (whereas a plain .asciz "foo;bar" does obviously work). Are there any contra-indications to such a change (i.e. are there targets t= hat can't tolerate this)? In any case, shouldn't the code in read.c currently protected by this be de= aling with '\n' specially (to at least increment the line counter)? What is= the intended meaning of a quoted '\n' anyway? Shouldn't there rather be a = warning about a missing closing quote (and the line be terminated there)? Additionally, as I'm seeing a number of similar issues in the macro handlin= g code: Is there a formal specification somewhere about the expected behavi= or of both the assembler in general and the macro code in particular, so on= e could reasonably judge whether a certain construct being rejected or prod= ucing unexpected results is a bug Thanks, Jan