Re: [PATCH] Re: .macro behavior

[Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>]

On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> 08.02.05 18:31:37 >>>
> >I thought you were talking about macro *parameter names*, as
> >that's the change that exposed the mistake in the MMIX
> >test-case.  I agree the macro names themselves should be
> >freely chosen (anything but whitespace or whatever).
>
> I'm actualy talking about both, and since both are symbol names, both
> should get the same treatment as ordinary symbols (despite agreeing that
> for macro parameters the previous restriction is less hurting).
> Otherwise it's just inconsistent.

I don't see what's wrong with that.  I'd say it actually
simplifies macro definitions and usage.  The macro parameter
name is used only in a macro definition, as a placeholder. It's
no big limitation to make it alphanumeric_ only.  Otherwise, the
macro writer that wants to cater to multiple GAS ports (say, in
a package similar to glibc) would have to avoid making the
parameter name followed by any non-space character at all, in
case some port has that character as part of an identifier.

Like what happened with ":" and mmix in gas/mmix/relax2.s.
You've changed semantics: this calls for at least a gas/NEWS
item.

brgds, H-P