This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PR target/21299 (reload accepting invalid asm)
Ian Lance Taylor <email@example.com> writes:
> Richard Sandiford <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> I don't understand your comment about the suggested change being
>> irritating to the expert. We're talking about a case that will
>> ICE otherwise. If we declare something invalid for .md files,
>> then surely we should declare it invalid for user asms too.
> Sure, I agree, and we should do it in the documentation, not in the
> code. I see no benefit to adding checks for inline assembler in the
> compiler, because the inline assembler is intrinsically dependent on
> the backend implementation which can not be changed.
OK, we'll just have to agree to disagree then. ;)
> And, lest I be misunderstood, let me repeat that I think the current
> inline assembler implementation has problems, and let me repeat that I
> think a redesign would be appropriate. However, I think that some
> incremental fixes are inappropriate unless we can be somehow certain
> that they are not harmful. The existing inline assembler support is
> not an implementation of a clean clearly articulated design which can
> be improved in accordance with that design; it is a direct interface
> to the internals of the compiler, and it should be treated as such.
Well sure, but if this is in reply to what I've been saying, I think
it's a strawman. It almost sounds like you think I was moaning about
the inline asm implementaion. I wasn't. I was genuinely trying to the
same thing as you; an incremental fix that I thought would be better.
I'll spare you and everyone else, and drop the thread now. ;)