https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116339
--- Comment #11 from jbeulich at suse dot com --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5) > Note this is not a gcc bug but rather binutils and has already been reported. Mind me asking what you take this from? See the gas bug that you did already link to. Just because gas accepted broken code doesn't mean it'll need to continue to. We may need some transitional mode, yet how that's to look like is entirely unclear. (In reply to Sam James from comment #10) > Jan, can you have a look? I'm happy to report issues for the various > breakages if they look prima facie like real problems and not something > necessitating a change in the gas validation. I already looked at another instance in the same file that was pointed out: 97: cfi_pop 97b - \unwind, 0xe, 0x0 There are 5 arguments there, not (as gas previously parsed it) just three. Same for 98: cfi_push 98b - __aeabi_ldiv0, 0xe, -0x4, 0x8 which I think is the line in question here. Since macro arguments (and parameters as well) are permitted to be separated by just blanks, arguments including blanks need parenthesizing or quoting. But let's continue the discussion on a proper way forward in the binutils bug.
