This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org 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: Wonly-top-basic-asm

From: David Wohlferd <dw at LimeGreenSocks dot com>
To: Bernd Schmidt <bschmidt at redhat dot com>, Bernd Edlinger <bernd dot edlinger at hotmail dot de>, Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, "jason at redhat dot com" <jason at redhat dot com>, "segher at kernel dot crashing dot org" <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>, "Paul_Koning at Dell dot com" <Paul_Koning at Dell dot com>, Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, "hubicka at ucw dot cz" <hubicka at ucw dot cz>, David Wohlferd <dw at LimeGreenSocks dot com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 16:55:21 -0800
Subject: Re: Wonly-top-basic-asm
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <56A54EF9 dot 8060006 at LimeGreenSocks dot com> <56A61442 dot 3090803 at redhat dot com> <56A9C134 dot 1030500 at LimeGreenSocks dot com> <56B80F57 dot 9020606 at LimeGreenSocks dot com> <HE1PR07MB09059C5C9C060394C61A1232E4D50 at HE1PR07MB0905 dot eurprd07 dot prod dot outlook dot com> <56BBCC90 dot 9020001 at LimeGreenSocks dot com> <56BCAB73 dot 20506 at redhat dot com> <56BD8427 dot 4050405 at LimeGreenSocks dot com> <56BDD550 dot 3050908 at redhat dot com> <56BE80F4 dot 6060803 at codesourcery dot com> <56BFFBD9 dot 7010202 at LimeGreenSocks dot com> <56C7BB50 dot 4000909 at LimeGreenSocks dot com> <HE1PR07MB0905FC1A625C57C8A0C56C72E4A10 at HE1PR07MB0905 dot eurprd07 dot prod dot outlook dot com> <56C99113 dot 7090602 at LimeGreenSocks dot com> <56D06AC1 dot 7090607 at redhat dot com> <56D3ECEE dot 4050503 at LimeGreenSocks dot com>

So, we have been discussing this issue for 4 months now. Over thattime, I have tried to incorporate everyone's feedback.

As a result we have gone from a tiny doc patch (just describe thecurrent semantics), to a big doc patch (completely deprecate basic asmwhen used in a function) to a medium doc patch + code fix (warning whenusing basic asm in a function) and now back to aslightly-bigger-than-tiny doc patch.

I have made no changes since the last patch I posted(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01406.html) for thereasons discussed below.

I assert that this patch both contains important information users needand is better than the current text. I expect that Sandra is preparedto check this in as soon as someone signs off on its technical accuracy.


dw

On 2/28/2016 11:02 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:

On 2/26/2016 7:09 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 02/21/2016 11:27 AM, David Wohlferd wrote:
So now what?  I have one Bernd who likes the sample, and one who
doesn't.  Obviously I think what I'm proposing is better than what's
there now and I've done my best to say why.  But me believing it to be
better doesn't get anything checked in.
I hadn't thought it through well enough. Jan's objection (order isn'tguaranteed) is relevant. I'd drop the example.
To be clear: Are you suggesting that we delete the sample that isthere and have no example at all for basic asm?
I'm not sure I agree. Looking at the linux kernel source, there aretimes and places where basic asm is appropriate, even necessary. Irealize that macros are an uncommon usage. But it makes for a moreinteresting sample than simply outputting a section name.
If ordering is your concern, would adding a reference to-fno-toplevel-reorder make you feel better about this? It seemsunnecessary in this particular context, but mentioning this option onthe basic asm page is certainly appropriate.
dw

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Wonly-top-basic-asm
  - From: Bernd Schmidt

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