This is the mail archive of the gcc@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]

Re: Scheduling of asm()

From: Falk Hueffner <falk dot hueffner at student dot uni-tuebingen dot de>
To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: 05 Jan 2002 01:00:06 +0100
Subject: Re: Scheduling of asm()
References: <87y9jdzqpx.fsf@student.uni-tuebingen.de><15414.13048.648850.400413@pkoning.dev.equallogic.com><20020104151656.B17715@redhat.com>

Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com> writes:

> On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 05:55:52PM -0500, Paul Koning wrote:
> > Supplying the schedule class seems like the right answer..
> 
> Until you consider how much compiler internals that exposes to the
> user's source code, at which point we can't reasonably change
> anything in the backend any more.

The constrains for asms also expose these internals. I can't really
see a difference there. Also changing the backend classes wouldn't
break code, only possibly remove performance advantages.

        Falk

References:
- Scheduling of asm()
  - From: Falk Hueffner
- Re: Scheduling of asm()
  - From: Paul Koning
- Re: Scheduling of asm()
  - From: Richard Henderson

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]