Re: basic asm and memory clobbers

[Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>]

On 11/17/2015 03:07 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 5:31 AM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 11/16/2015 10:55 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
> > > - There is no standard that says it must do this.
> >
> > True.  But these after all are extensions and extensions have been
> > notoriously under-documented through the years.
> >
> > > - I'm only aware of 1 person who has ever asked for this change. And the
> > > request has been deemed so unimportant it has languished for a very long
> > > time.
> >
> > True.  But I'd say for this case it means it just hasn't been high enough on
> > anyone's priority list to get resolved.   I wouldn't be at all surprised if
> > Richard filed this bug to ensure that it didn't get lost. That's standard
> > development procedure for items we notice, but aren't actively working on.
> >
> > It's unfortunate that Andrew muddied the waters.  Andrew's conclusions,
> > particularly in c#6 are simply wrong.
>
>
> Sorry about that.  I have since changed my views on this matter to say
> old-style asm should clobber memory.  I should have written this
> sooner but I have been busy with other things.
I certainly understand being busy with other things.  Thanks for chiming 
in and clarifying your current thoughts.

Jeff