Joao, From a theoretical standpoint you are probably right. A duplicate definition could be flagged as a warning, and an error message could be issued only when referencing it.
But this would not work for labels that are externalized. Also, when producing/using Adata it would cause confusion. And finally, the assembler simply was not built to work like that. I *think* ( I cannot be sure) the internal symbol table has no option to store conflicting definitions. So it simply marks any conflict as an error without updating that table. I agree that is would be possible to differentiate between a warning-level duplicate and an error-level duplicate. Yet from a practical standpoint there is zero reason to do so. If you really, really want to pursue this, you are free to clone the z390 open-source assembler and modify it to suit your needs. https://github.com/z390development/z390 Kind regards, Abe Kornelis ========== Op 01/05/2024 om 12:56 schreef João Reginato: > I can't see it as an additional code if it is already checking the > duplicates. It could only show an error where/when/if the duplicated field > is referenced. Simple > > Em qua., 1 de mai. de 2024, 07:20, Steve Smith <[email protected]> escreveu: > >> Because it's an error whether referenced or not. Why should the assembler >> add additional code to check that symbol isn't referenced? >> >> I don't understand your last statement. >> >> sas >> >> On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 11:43 AM João Reginato <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Ok, I understand your point of view. But why show the duplicate as an >>> error if it is not referenced anywhere? It could be an error just in the >>> references. >>> >>>
