This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: MS/CW-style inline assembly for GCC
>>>>> Matt Austern writes:
Matt> I don't think we want to emulate all of these things, which means
Matt> that not all code will be directly portable from MSVC to gcc. Maybe
Matt> this means that "MS/CW-style" is a bad name for what we're trying
Matt> to do. Perhaps a better name would just be: more natural syntax
Matt> for inline assembly. There will be a large common subset between
Matt> the new gcc inline assembly syntax and MSVC inline assembly
Matt> syntax, but not an expectation that it will be wart-for-wart identical.
If this new MS/CW-like syntax is not well defined, the GCC
community is going to be saddled with lots of bug reports. Even with good
documentation, many users are going to try MS/CW-style inlined assembly
and complain about differences. Telling the users "works as expected" may
not endear GCC to those users.
I am not arguing against supporting that syntax. We need to be
consider how users will approach this new feature.