>> Well they managed to break code, so this was indeed a bad decision. > > With that Binutils change we only report an error for code which was broken anyway. Well it worked, so it wasn't broken. I would just have liked this instruction to be fixed in a backwards compatible way (e.g. warning - or is it just a warning and my gcc flags treat them as errors?). > > When writing this testcase the right thing would have been to report a Binutils bug instead of > writing a testcase which uses an instruction which isn't part of the POP. Huh? PoP - "Control Instructions" - 10-176 - "TEST BLOCK". Even can find it in the Pop from 2004. But anyhow, we have this fixed now. Was just wondering, why our _working_ code suddenly broke (and now we have to use .insn to make it compile with GCC in general). Thanks. > > -Andreas- > -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
