The comment looks bogus (perhaps simply stale), and there are also no
other precautions against subsections being used on ELF with .bss. It
also doesn't look to be a good idea to override the custom handler that
ELF has (afaict doing so further broke .previous).
@@ -88,7 +88,6 @@ int s390_cie_data_alignment;
/* Define the prototypes for the pseudo-ops */
static void s390_byte (int);
static void s390_elf_cons (int);
-static void s390_bss (int);
static void s390_insn (int);
static void s390_literals (int);
static void s390_machine (int);
@@ -98,7 +97,6 @@ const pseudo_typeS md_pseudo_table[] =
{
{ "align", s_align_bytes, 0 },
/* Pseudo-ops which must be defined. */
- { "bss", s390_bss, 0 },
{ "insn", s390_insn, 0 },
/* Pseudo-ops which must be overridden. */
{ "byte", s390_byte, 0 },
@@ -1734,16 +1732,6 @@ md_create_long_jump (ptr, from_addr, to_
}
#endif
-void
-s390_bss (int ignore ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED)
-{
- /* We don't support putting frags in the BSS segment, we fake it
- by marking in_bss, then looking at s_skip for clues. */
-
- subseg_set (bss_section, 0);
- demand_empty_rest_of_line ();
-}
-
/* Pseudo-op handling. */
void