This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Deprecating basic asm in a function - What now?
- From: Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>
- To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>
- Cc: David Wohlferd <dw at limegreensocks dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 08:50:28 -0500
- Subject: Re: Deprecating basic asm in a function - What now?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <dc3ca16c-3521-757f-fcf0-50061f510f75 at LimeGreenSocks dot com> <CA+=Sn1=vKM2DYUrg40inMaKwejjC8YU3qs8iJPXn3+ok1trEQw at mail dot gmail dot com>
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).