RE: inline asm and status flags on x86

[Geoff Berry <geoffb at bops dot com>]

How's this?

2000-05-04  Geoff Berry  <geoffb@bops.com>

	* extend.texi (Extended Asm): Document inability to give asm
	statements access to condition codes.

Index: extend.texi
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/egcs/gcc/extend.texi,v
retrieving revision 1.44
diff -c -3 -p -r1.44 extend.texi
*** extend.texi	2000/03/14 08:24:21	1.44
--- extend.texi	2000/05/04 17:39:52
*************** instructions would alter the condition c
*** 2662,2667 ****
--- 2662,2671 ----
  test it.  This problem doesn't arise for ordinary ``test'' and
  ``compare'' instructions because they don't have any output operands.
  
+ For reasons similar to those described above, it is not possible to give
+ an assembler instruction access to the condition code left by previous
+ instructions.
+ 
  If you are writing a header file that should be includable in ANSI C
  programs, write @code{__asm__} instead of @code{asm}.  @xref{Alternate
  Keywords}.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey A Law [mailto:law@cygnus.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 4:36 PM
To: Geoff Berry
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: inline asm and status flags on x86 



  In message
<3D71CCC526F1D311A72600902773EC21094EDB@cascabella.rtp.bops.com>yo
u write:
  > I did read this section but I understood it to mean something different
fro
  > what I was trying to achieve.  It refers to accessing condition codes
left
  > by the assembler instruction, but I am trying to access condition codes
in
  > the assembler statement left by non-assembler statements.  If this is
not
  > workable for the same reasons, I would not be surprised; however, I
don't
  > think what I am attempting is described by the quoted passage (but
perhaps
  > it should be?).
It's unavailable for basically the same reasons.  Yes, that passage should
probably cover that explicitly.  Care to provide a revision to that hunk
of the manual.

jeff