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: Deprecating basic asm in a function - What now?


On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 12:00:16AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Also I think the other place where we should accept basic asm is for
> "nop" instructions.  I have seen people use that heavily.

And anything else that means the same as basic asm and as extended asm.

> Note really I don't like the idea of deprecating basic asm at all.

If basic asm is deprecated, that means some time later it will be
removed, at which time an asm without : can be used as extended asm
(or we can force everyone to write asm("nop":); if we are silly).

Warning about asm without : now is just unnecessary churn (and not just
for us, also for all the users of inline asm).


Segher


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