This is the mail archive of the 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: MS/CW-style inline assembly for GCC

On May 4, 2004, at 9:33 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:

Matt Austern writes:

Matt> I don't think we want to emulate all of these things, which means
Matt> that not all code will be directly portable from MSVC to gcc. Maybe
Matt> this means that "MS/CW-style" is a bad name for what we're trying
Matt> to do. Perhaps a better name would just be: more natural syntax
Matt> for inline assembly. There will be a large common subset between
Matt> the new gcc inline assembly syntax and MSVC inline assembly
Matt> syntax, but not an expectation that it will be wart-for-wart identical.

If this new MS/CW-like syntax is not well defined, the GCC
community is going to be saddled with lots of bug reports. Even with good
documentation, many users are going to try MS/CW-style inlined assembly
and complain about differences. Telling the users "works as expected" may
not endear GCC to those users.

	I am not arguing against supporting that syntax.  We need to be
consider how users will approach this new feature.

I agree. You're arguing that this syntax should be clearly documented, that
we should say exactly what it is and what works, and that documenting it as
"well, it's just like MS/CW except when it isn't" isn't good enough. I agree
with that argument. (It's one I'd like to see applied more broadly, but that's
a rant for another day.)


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