This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: Doc update for attribute
- From: David Wohlferd <dw at LimeGreenSocks dot com>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Cc: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, Richard Sandiford <rdsandiford at googlemail dot com>
- Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 16:42:58 -0700
- Subject: Re: RFC: Doc update for attribute
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <53718DCF dot 4030303 at LimeGreenSocks dot com> <537647F8 dot 9060306 at redhat dot com>
Thank you for your response. This is exactly what I wanted to know. One
+is discouraged, it is possible to write your own prologue/epilogue code
+using asm and use ``C'' code in the middle.
I wouldn't remove the last sentence since IMO it's not the intent of the feature
to ever support that and the compiler doesn't guarantee it and may result
in wrong code given that `naked' is a fragile low-level feature.
I'm assuming you meant "would remove."
I wasn't comfortable including that sentence, but I was following the
existing docs. Since they said you could "only" use basic asm,
following that with a warning to "avoid" locals/if/etc was really
confusing without this text.
Also, as ugly as this is, apparently some people really do this (comment
We don't have to doc every crazy thing people try to do with gcc. But
since it's out there, maybe we should this time? If only to discourage it.
I'm *slightly* more in favor of keeping it. But if you still feel it
should go, it's gone.