This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Deprecating basic asm in a function - What now?
- From: Manuel LÃpez-IbÃÃez <lopezibanez at gmail dot com>
- To: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, 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: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 18:59:43 +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> <576970ED dot 30507 at redhat dot com> <f666086e-8c64-c6c8-b1a2-eaa18572a685 at redhat dot com>
On 22/06/16 10:02, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 06/21/2016 06:53 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
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.
GCC could parse the assembly instructions and figure out the clobbers.
Which is also needed for various things, such as providing better diagnostics:
Of course, that would require a closer integration with binutils. There has
been some work in that direction in the past:
but like the GCC-GDB integration, it seems to have stalled or be happening
behind closed doors.