This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] asm qualifiers (PR55681) and asm inline
- From: Segher Boessenkool <segher at kernel dot crashing dot org>
- To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, jason at redhat dot com, nathan at acm dot org, polacek at redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2018 12:54:08 -0600
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] asm qualifiers (PR55681) and asm inline
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20181206181055.GB3803@gate.crashing.org> <20181206181520.GW12380@tucnak>
On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 07:15:20PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 12:10:56PM -0600, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 02, 2018 at 04:38:16PM +0000, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > v2, with the input from Joseph taken into account.
> > >
> > > This is the same "asm inline" patch as before, but now preceded by a
> > > patch that makes all orderings of volatile/goto/inline valid, all other
> > > type qualifiers invalid, all repetitions of qualifiers invalid.
> > Committed now, with everyone's suggestions addressed.
> > Is this okay for backport to 8? Maybe 7? After a week or so, of course.
> > This will help the Linux people to use it sooner.
> Not sure if in the backport we shouldn't keep accepting with warning like
> before const asm and not do the changes of accepting in any order except
> perhaps for the inline keyword in there?
Okay, I'll edit the const (etc.) back in. The "any order" is easier to
keep this way I think (and doesn't change anything for code that was