This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Deprecating basic asm in a function - What now?
- From: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- To: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>
- Cc: "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 17:53:01 +0100
- 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> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 20 dot 1606201931460 dot 13156 at wotan dot suse dot de> <57682A85 dot 4060803 at redhat dot com> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 20 dot 1606201941340 dot 13156 at wotan dot suse dot de> <57690227 dot 2050501 at redhat dot com> <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 20 dot 1606211401150 dot 13156 at wotan dot suse dot de> <57696C45 dot 5000309 at redhat dot com> <c23d921a-5546-ea81-0367-cfc1a18de876 at redhat dot com>
On 21/06/16 17:43, Jeff Law wrote:
> I think there's enough resistance to deprecating basic asms within a
> function that we should probably punt that idea.
> I do think we should look to stomp out our own uses of basic asms
> within functions just from a long term maintenance standpoint.
> Finally I think we should continue to bring the implementation of
> basic asms more in-line with expectations and future proofing them
> since I'm having a hard time seeing a reasonable path to deprecating
> their use.
Me too. I wonder if there's anything else we can do to make basic asm
in a function a bit less of a time bomb.