This is the mail archive of the 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 20/06/16 15:52, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 03:49:19PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 20/06/16 15:42, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 02:55:58PM +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>>> On 20/06/16 14:50, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>> Not exactly: it'd be an asm with no inputs, no outputs, and no
>>>> clobbers i.e. no effects.
>>> I'm not sure what you mean?  It will be treated exactly the same as
>>> basic asm (it is now, anyway).  And it has an effect, it is volatile
>>> after all, not having any outputs?
>> Well, you didn't say that it was volatile: and unless it really is
>> an asm volatile (not just an asm) an extended asm with no effects
>> is a statement with no effects.
> An extended asm without outputs is always volatile (exactly because
> it would be useless otherwise).

Oh, I see what you mean now.  Yes, point taken.


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