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: basic asm and memory clobbers - Proposed solution


On 12/01/2015 04:25 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Tue, 1 Dec 2015, David Wohlferd wrote:

Saying it's dead in the docs is the first step to making it dead in the code.
This patch just implements an optional warning (unless #3,4 crank it up to a
default warning), but the intent is that eventually (v7? v8?) this turns into
a fatal error.

I am strongly skeptical of this whole direction.  As I noted, the basic
asm syntax is part of the standard C++ syntax.  We should define it to do
something sensible consistent with existing practice.  (That does not
exclude a non-default warning, not part of -Wall or -Wextra, for people
who wish to avoid basic asm in functions.)
Isn't "asm" conditionally supported for ISO C++? In which case it's not mandatory and semantics are implementation defined.

http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/asm

So we have a lot of leeway in what we do.

My strong preference is still to document the desired semantics for GCC and treat anything that does not adhere to those semantics as a bug.

I think a non-default warning is fine. A default warning (or -Wall/-Westra) is probably undesirable, though I'm still willing to be convinced either way on that.

jeff


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