On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 4:44 AM, Nick Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Per, Hi H.J., > > H.J. - this email is in response to a x86 assembler bug report from Per that > was posted here: > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-binutils/2008-09/msg00006.html > > I have a patch to fix the problem (attached) but I am not sure if you will > like it. Possibly the error should be caught earlier, before the attempt to > apply the fixup ? > > The patch includes a new test to cover the example in the original email and > a tweak to an existing test that is altered by the patch. If you are OK > with it please let me know and I will apply the patch to the sources. > Cheers > Nick > > gas/ChangeLog > 2008-09-18 Nick Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * config/tc-i386.c (md_apply_fix): Refuse fixups against register > symbols. > > gas/testsuite/ChangeLog > 2008-09-18 Nick Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * gas/i386/inval-symbol.s: New test. > * gas/i386/inval-symbol.l: Expected listing. > * gas/i386/i386.exp: Run new test. > * gas/i386/inval-equ-2.l: Update expecting listing output. > >
Hi Nick, I think it is another form of http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5543 We fixed it in generic assembler. If we want to fix this one in x86 backend, should we revert the fix for PR 5543? -- H.J. _______________________________________________ bug-binutils mailing list bug-binutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-binutils