This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: basic asm and memory clobbers - Proposed solution
- From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- To: David Wohlferd <dw at LimeGreenSocks dot com>, Paul_Koning at Dell dot com, bernd dot edlinger at hotmail dot de
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 12:01:50 +0000
- Subject: Re: basic asm and memory clobbers - Proposed solution
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <56552209 dot 1020306 at LimeGreenSocks dot com> <56592801 dot 9010606 at LimeGreenSocks dot com> <HE1PR07MB09050E30BB6C251DBB454790E4020 at HE1PR07MB0905 dot eurprd07 dot prod dot outlook dot com> <9EAD225F-1323-439F-B697-C90F86F1D959 at dell dot com> <565B8FE2 dot 7000500 at LimeGreenSocks dot com>
On 11/29/2015 11:53 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
> Trying to guess what people might have been expecting is a losing game.
We have to do it all the time.
> There is a way for people to be clear about what they want to clobber,
> and that's to use extended asm. The way to clear up the ambiguity is to
> start deprecating basic asm, not to add to the confusion by changing its
> behavior after all these years.
Well, I disagree. The warning is good, but so is the memory clobber.
They're not exclusive.