Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 14:57:20 -0500
Message-Id: <199903221957.OAA32392@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <36F69D7F.25F23B74@taniwha.tssc.co.nz> (message from Bill Currie
	on Tue, 23 Mar 1999 07:43:59 +1200)
Subject: Re: djasm shift semi bug + proposal
References: <36F5CF26 DOT AEED9A67 AT taniwha DOT tssc DOT co DOT nz> <199903221509 DOT KAA00687 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <36F69D7F DOT 25F23B74 AT taniwha DOT tssc DOT co DOT nz>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


> src/stub/stub.asm  shr/shl only
> tests/libc/crt0/teststub.asm  shr/shl only

OK.  I'm still nervous about having an opcode with such a vague
meaning.  Maybe we can recognize its misuse and issue a suitable
error.

> Thought so, though I'd been under the impression you've given up on
> djlink (hence the question).

It's still there, and it tries to follow the OMF spec.  My point is
that if something as esoteric as djasm is going to support OMF, it
might as well be compatible with an esoteric linker :-)