This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 2/26/2016 7:09 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 02/21/2016 11:27 AM, David Wohlferd wrote:So now what? I have one Bernd who likes the sample, and one who doesn't. Obviously I think what I'm proposing is better than what's there now and I've done my best to say why. But me believing it to be better doesn't get anything checked in.I hadn't thought it through well enough. Jan's objection (order isn't guaranteed) is relevant. I'd drop the example.
To be clear: Are you suggesting that we delete the sample that is there and have no example at all for basic asm?
I'm not sure I agree. Looking at the linux kernel source, there are times and places where basic asm is appropriate, even necessary. I realize that macros are an uncommon usage. But it makes for a more interesting sample than simply outputting a section name.
If ordering is your concern, would adding a reference to -fno-toplevel-reorder make you feel better about this? It seems unnecessary in this particular context, but mentioning this option on the basic asm page is certainly appropriate.
dw
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |