From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Robert Lipe <robertl@dgii.com>
To: Ian Lance Taylor <ian@cygnus.com>
Cc: gas2@cygnus.com, law@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: pushl computed immediate address on 2.8.1
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 1998 13:26:00 -0000
Message-id: <19980102152547.25804@dgii.com>
References: <19980102144041.15293@dgii.com> <199801022106.QAA01775@subrogation.cygnus.com> <199801022106.QAA01775@subrogation.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 1998/msg00002.html

> 	   pushl $.LC0@GOTOFF(%ebx)
>    seems to assemble just like
> 	   pushl $LC0
> 
> This happens because when gas sees the '$', it passes the rest of the
> line to the expression parsing code.  The expression parser doesn't
> recognize the '@', so it just returns .LC0.  gas then fails to notice
> that part of the line wasn't parsed.

That sounds like a perfectly reasonable explanation.

>    Does this sound right at all?    Should GAS error on this?
> It sounds wrong, and I'll change gas to emit an error.

This exercise wasn't entirely academic.   EGCS (and presumably GCC) 
actually will emit this construct.   So, although I agree it is the 
right thing to do for the assembler to complain about this, be 
prepared that doing so will "break" those tools.   

Of course, they never _really_ worked right, but the output would 
actually give the desired results in some cases.     We'll probably 
hear that GAS "broke" the compiler for a while, but in reality, I 
think this is a healthy thing and will help expose the real problem 
in the x86 part of the compilers.

Thank you, Ian.

RJL