https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32073
--- Comment #3 from Sam James <sam at gentoo dot org> --- (In reply to Jan Beulich from comment #2) > While this use of macros may be in widespread use, that doesn't make it > correct > (and the gas/NEWS entry actually mentions a macro invocation of this same > form). Macro arguments (and parameters) don't require commas as separators. > Hence without relying on the internal workings of the gas scrubber, one > can't assume that the provided example passes a single argument; instead > (following admittedly not great documentation) it's rather 3 arguments which > are being passed. Just that gas didn't handle this correctly in the past. > Let me give a slightly more complex example: > > m 101 + (1) (15) (a) > > How many arguments? > > The change in question had been pending comments for a long time. Sadly, as > is happening more often than not, comments actually surface only once a > change was committed and suddenly issues with (broken) existing code show up. > I get that, and I've been the victim of it many a time in projects. But I would also generally expect some heavy consumers of gas to be checked as well. glibc doesn't build for me, nor does the kernel. Did you try build any projects using patched gas? (It's very possible you did, it's not an accusation; the kernel obviously has a million config options, and glibc has its own idiosyncrasies as to whether assembly is used.) It is what it is though. I'll gather a list of broken cases and report them (possibly here first if I'm unsure on if it's wrong). The only reason I care particularly here is because both glibc and the kernel don't build for me. If it was just a few userland applications like ffmpeg, so be it, we've dealt with that before. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
