Re: PR target/21299 (reload accepting invalid asm)

[Richard Sandiford <richard at codesourcery dot com>]

Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> writes:
> Richard Sandiford <richard@codesourcery.com> 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. ;)

Richard