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: [PATCH] x86: allow to suppress default clobbers added to asm()s

On 10/31/14 02:07, Jan Beulich wrote:
While it always seemed wrong to me that there's no way to avoid the
default "flags" and "fpsr" clobbers, the regression the fix for
PR/60663 introduced (see PR/63637) makes it even more desirable to have
such a mechanism: This way, at least asm()s with a single output and no
explicit clobbers can again be made subject to CSE.

2014-10-31  Jan Beulich  <>

	* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_target_string): Add
	(ix86_valid_target_attribute_inner_p): Handle
	(ix86_md_asm_clobbers): Handle "inverse" clobbers.
	* config/i386/i386.h (NOCC_REGNUM, NOFPSR_REGNUM): Define.
	(ADDITIONAL_REGISTER_NAMES): Add "cc", "!cc", "!flags", and
	* config/i386/i386.opt: Add mdefault-asm-clobbers and
	* varasm.c (decode_reg_name_and_count): Permit negative
	register numbers in ADDITIONAL_REGISTER_NAMES.

2014-10-31  Jan Beulich  <>

	* Adjust expected error.
	*[123].c: New.
I really don't like having an option that's globally applied for this feature. THough I am OK with having a mechanism to avoid implicit clobbers on specific ASMs.

Why use negative numbers for the hard register numbers? I wouldn't be at all surprised if lots of random code assumes register numbers are always positive.

I don't like adding new registers with special names like !foo. Instead I think that listing "!cc" or something similar in the asm itself if it doesn't clobber the cc register would be better.

Other opinions?


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