[llvm-dev] compatibility with gnu binutils

[Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev]

On Thu, Feb 06, 2020 at 11:46:26AM -0800, Jordan Rupprecht via llvm-dev wrote:
> > Where was this policy, which sounds like replicating their design
> mistakes bug-for-bug, agreed upon and documented?
> James responded already, but just to add my perspective: on the subject of
> llvm vs gnu binutils compatibility, I've heard everything in the range from
> "let's do our own completely separate thing" to "let's be byte-for-byte
> compatible". The general consensus is closer towards the closer
> compatibility side, so the happy medium we've tried to apply is "be gnu
> compatible, except when it doesn't make sense" -- support for ancient
> platforms, bugs, weird formatting, etc. We definitely take things on a case
> by case basis, there's no firm policy that we replicate all the bugs.

So given that we got around with this for years, how much use do
non-lower case assembler pseudops actually see?

Joerg