Re: [PATCH 2/2] m68k: more workarounds for recent binutils idiocy

[Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>]

On Thu, Oct 12, 2006 at 12:12:05AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk> writes:
> 
> > cretinous thing doesn't believe that (%a0)+ is one macro argument and
> > splits it in two; worked around by quoting the argument...
> 
> What version are you using?  Works rather fine here with 2.17.

There are two problems; see below for the testcase covering both
.macro a x
	.byte 1
.endm
	a.x
	a %(a0)+

Old binutils (i.e. what Roman's code expects) treat the above as
	.byte 1
	.byte 1

That behaviour exists in 2.16.1 and earlier.  Everything starting at least
with 2.16.90.0.2 and up to current CVS generates
	Error: Unknown operator -- statement `a.x' ignored
for line 4.  That's the problem dealt with by the first patch (and yes,
current gas from CVS does blow on arch/m68k/math-emu/ as soon as you get
to getuser.l <something>).

_Another_ problem manifests as
	Error: too many positional arguments
in line 5.  That had been introduced later (in 2.16.91.0.3, if you look at
versions on kernel.org, or 2005-08-08 in mainline) and had been fixed since
then (2.16.91.0.7 or 2006-02-28 in CVS).  That's what the second patch
dealt with and yes, I agree that just slapping "don't use those versions
of binutils" in Documentation/Changes is a better variant.

The first problem still needs to be dealt with.