------- Additional Comments From zippel at linux-m68k dot org 2006-07-26 11:21 ------- (In reply to comment #3)
> OK, so presumably a workaround is to provide individual macros with the > names "foo.b", "foo.w" and so on, rather than just one macro. This is not possible, if it has to work with various versions of binutils. > Hmm, well the change was to make macros names consistent with other > names. ie if string was a valid name for a (pseudo) opcode or a label, > then it could also be a valid name for a macro. I appreciate however > that this did break backwards compatibility. What's the point of making this "consistent"? At least for m68k the old rules made more sense and should be the default here. -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2848 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils
