Simple? It's easy for you to say that without knowing how the assembler works. You can't see that it would be additional code? You haven't answered the questions as to why your program dies that. Feel free to submit an idea to change the behavior. Be sure to include a business justification. Don't be surprised if you get more people voting against it than vote for it.
-- Tom Marchant On Wed, 1 May 2024 07:56:52 -0300, João Reginato <jb.regin...@gmail.com> wrote: >I can't see it as an additional code if it is already checking the >duplicates. It could only show an error where/when/if the duplicated field >is referenced. Simple > >Em qua., 1 de mai. de 2024, 07:20, Steve Smith <sasd...@gmail.com> escreveu: > >> Because it's an error whether referenced or not. Why should the assembler >> add additional code to check that symbol isn't referenced? >> >> I don't understand your last statement. >> >> sas >> >> On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 11:43 AM João Reginato <jb.regin...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Ok, I understand your point of view. But why show the duplicate as an >> > error if it is not referenced anywhere? It could be an error just in the >> > references. >> > >> > >>
