This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Inline assembly syntax
- From: <tm_gccmail at kloo dot net>
- To: Paul Koning <pkoning at equallogic dot com>
- Cc: shebs at apple dot com, ian at wasabisystems dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 17:43:14 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: Re: Inline assembly syntax
On Mon, 10 May 2004, Paul Koning wrote:
> >>>>> "Stan" == Stan Shebs <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Stan> Incidentally, as I was thinking about the assembly grokking
> Stan> problem, it occurred that we already have a rich mine of info
> Stan> about operand constraints - the machine descriptions
> Stan> themselves. Not always expressed as per-instruction, but for at
> Stan> least the one-instruction output strings, one could make up a
> Stan> table of instructions/constraint letters/types that would be
> Stan> pretty accurate, and not need special per-target hackery.
> But that only covers the subset of instructions used by the compiler.
> A big reason for assembly code is to do things the compiler doesn't
> do. So that's likely to exercise code patterns not found in the .md
This is especially true on the SH architecture, where we have vector
instructions which are not describable in the .md file. (They use
non-compiler visible registers).