This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
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.
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
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
documentation, many users are going to try MS/CW-style inlined assembly
and complain about differences. Telling the users "works as expected"
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,
we should say exactly what it is and what works, and that documenting
"well, it's just like MS/CW except when it isn't" isn't good enough. I
with that argument. (It's one I'd like to see applied more broadly,
a rant for another day.)