This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: basic asm and memory clobbers - Proposed solution
- From: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- To: David Wohlferd <dw at LimeGreenSocks dot com>, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, Paul_Koning at Dell dot com, bernd dot edlinger at hotmail dot de
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 20:42:17 -0700
- 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> <565C3AAE dot 2080705 at redhat dot com> <565E1F61 dot 7060107 at LimeGreenSocks dot com>
On 12/01/2015 03:29 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
I understand Richard's position and while I think it has some merit, I
think it's probably taking things too far at this time.
On 11/30/2015 4:01 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> 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
>> start deprecating basic asm, not to add to the confusion by changing
>> behavior after all these years.
> Well, I disagree. The warning is good, but so is the memory clobber.
> They're not exclusive.
As Richard Henderson put it: "I'd be perfectly happy to deprecate and
later completely remove basic asm within functions."