The modified statement is, of course, a blundering one. The modifier's zeal outran his skills.
Still, it seems to me that situations like this one in which 1) an explicit length is provided and 2) there is a mismatch between this length and that of the literal involved should be noted by the assembler. Such a messaged would at worst be innocuous. On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 12:26 PM, robin <[email protected]> wrote: > From: "John Walker" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9:00 PM > > > Probably somebody saw the need to add in the code and didn't think about >> how silly it looked. >> > > Unlikely. > If it was a timid approach, the obvious thing would have been to extend > the existing constant with the appropriate change in length, > as that would involve the least amount of work. > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > http://www.avast.com > -- John Gilmore, Ashland, MA 01721 - USA
