This is the mail archive of the
gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: middle-end/5345: ICE when using the "+m" constraint with built-in assembly
- From: Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc at mediaone dot net>
- To: nobody at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: gcc-prs at gcc dot gnu dot org,
- Date: 14 Jan 2002 14:16:03 -0000
- Subject: Re: middle-end/5345: ICE when using the "+m" constraint with built-in assembly
- Reply-to: Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc at mediaone dot net>
The following reply was made to PR middle-end/5345; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@mediaone.net>
To: Andrew Zabolotny <zap@cobra.ru>
Cc: "gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>,
"gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>,
"rodrigc@gcc.gnu.org" <rodrigc@gcc.gnu.org>, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: middle-end/5345: ICE when using the "+m" constraint with built-in assembly
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 09:15:30 -0500
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 12:31:36PM +0300, Andrew Zabolotny wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2002 19:16:26 -0000, rodrigc@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
> > clobber
> > gcc-ice.cpp:44: confused by earlier errors, bailing out
> Hmm... it looks like the problem has been at least partially fixed. Can you
> please try to remove the "st" constraint, e.g. the last three lines of the asm
> directive will look like this:
>
> "fmulp %%st(1)\n" // a
> : "=&t" (ret), "+m" (x) : "m" (0.5F), "m" (1.5F)
> : "eax", "st(1)", "st(2)", "st(3)", "st(4)", "st(5)", "st(6)", "st(7)"
> );
Changing the line as you mentioned works with
gcc 3.0.3 and gcc 3.1.
> Is it reasonable for me to rise this question on gcc mailing list? Where else I
> can get an expert advice on built-in gcc assembly?
Sure, you can ask on the gcc mailing list.
The other mailing list which would be good
would be the binutils mailing list:
http://sources.redhat.com/binutils/