Re: inconsistency in alias to undefined symbol

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich at novell dot com>]

>>> Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> 27.10.05 07:00:53 >>>
>On Oct 26, 2005, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> 26.10.05 08:19:29 >>>
>>> Is it correct that we reject:
>
>>> .set x, y
>>> .long x
>
>> As of yesterday this should be accepted again (as it used to be up
to
>> 2.16.1).
>
>Even if x is declared .global, .weak, .hidden, etc?  That doesn't
>sound right to me.  I'd expect .set x, whatever to introduce a symbol
>x in the symbol table or fail, not simply drop it if the definition
>turned out to be an undefined symbol.

Not really. Without ia64's .alias becoming common there's no way to
define an alias of a symbol without also making that alias global. There
was some lengthy discussion about that during the past couple of weeks,
if you want to refer to that (and see a use case of the construct). And
even if ia64's .alias was generalized, removing support for the older
construct should be done only after one or two main releases.

Jan