This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: Scheduling of asm()

From: Paul Koning <pkoning at equallogic dot com>
To: rth at redhat dot com
Cc: falk dot hueffner at student dot uni-tuebingen dot de, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 13:57:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Scheduling of asm()
References: <87y9jdzqpx.fsf@student.uni-tuebingen.de><15414.13048.648850.400413@pkoning.dev.equallogic.com><20020104151656.B17715@redhat.com>

Excerpt of message (sent 4 January 2002) by Richard Henderson:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 05:55:52PM -0500, Paul Koning wrote:
> > Supplying the schedule class seems like the right answer..
> 
> Until you consider how much compiler internals that exposes
> to the user's source code, at which point we can't reasonably
> change anything in the backend any more.

Isn't the same true already?  You're allowed to refer to
target-specific operand letters in the asm statement.  It's arguable
whether those are any less an internal detail than the names of the
"type" attribute.  

       paul

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Scheduling of asm()
  - From: Richard Henderson

References:
- Scheduling of asm()
  - From: Falk Hueffner
- Re: Scheduling of asm()
  - From: Paul Koning
- Re: Scheduling of asm()
  - From: Richard Henderson

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