This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Deprecating basic asm in a function - What now?
- From: Bernd Edlinger <bernd dot edlinger at hotmail dot de>
- To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>, Michael Matz <matz at suse dot de>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, David Wohlferd <dw at LimeGreenSocks dot com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 18:29:45 +0000
- Subject: Re: Deprecating basic asm in a function - What now?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: spf=softfail (sender IP is 25.152.4.57) smtp.mailfrom=hotmail.de; redhat.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;redhat.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=hotmail.de;
On 21/06/2016 17:53, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 21/06/16 17:43, Jeff Law wrote:
> > I think there's enough resistance to deprecating basic asms within a
> > function that we should probably punt that idea.
> >
> > I do think we should look to stomp out our own uses of basic asms
> > within functions just from a long term maintenance standpoint.
> >
> > Finally I think we should continue to bring the implementation of
> > basic asms more in-line with expectations and future proofing them
> > since I'm having a hard time seeing a reasonable path to deprecating
> > their use.
>
> Me too. I wonder if there's anything else we can do to make basic asm
> in a function a bit less of a time bomb.
>
> Andrew.
I do not like the idea to deprecate the basic asm at all, I must admit,
but I think if we added a warning, that just contains a positive information, like
"warning: basic asm semantic has been changed to implicitly clobber memory,
if you have a problem with that, please convert this asm statement to extended
asm syntax."
Then that would possibly be acceptable for everybody here.
We could still discuss, if that warning should be enabled with -Wall, -Wextra or only
on request.
Bernd.