This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: basic asm and memory clobbers - Proposed solution
- From: <Paul_Koning at Dell dot com>
- To: <dw at LimeGreenSocks dot com>
- Cc: <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2015 01:01:48 +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> <565DC5F4 dot 6080804 at foss dot arm dot com> <565E1E37 dot 9080609 at LimeGreenSocks dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1512012323160 dot 12604 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <565E6862 dot 7070401 at redhat dot com> <566B4BA1 dot 8000509 at LimeGreenSocks dot com> <566BEE35 dot 6070804 at redhat dot com> <566D0CE6 dot 6090905 at LimeGreenSocks dot com> <566E9191 dot 9030106 at redhat dot com> <567092B9 dot 6020703 at LimeGreenSocks dot com>
> On Dec 15, 2015, at 5:22 PM, David Wohlferd <dw@LimeGreenSocks.com> wrote:
> On 12/14/2015 1:53 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> > This just seems like another argument for deprecating basic asm and pushing people to extended.
>> Yes. I am not arguing against deprecation. We should do that.
> You know, there are several people who seem to generally support this direction. Not enough to call it a consensus, but perhaps the beginning of one:
> - Andrew Haley
> - David Wohlferd
> - Richard Henderson
> - Segher Boessenkool
> - Bernd Schmidt
> Anyone else want to add their name here?
No, but I want to speak in opposition.
"Deprecate" means two things: warn now, remove later. For reasons stated by others, I object to "remove later". So "warn now, remove never" I would support, but not "deprecate".