This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: patch to add #pushdef, #popdef to cccp,cpplib
- To: law at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: patch to add #pushdef, #popdef to cccp,cpplib
- From: Bill Currie <bcurrie at tssc dot co dot nz>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 13:47:13 +1200
- CC: Chuck Blake <cblake at lcs dot mit dot edu>, Gerald Pfeifer <pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at>, egcs-patches at cygnus dot com
- Organization: Telecommunication Systems Support Centre
- References: <email@example.com>
Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> Often they do not have a choice -- consider what's happened with asms
> that have drifted into system include files. And in the process of
> getting wider exposure, they have uncovered fundamental flaws in the
> design of the asm extensions.
This is pure curiosity: is an example of these flaws the problem with
(eg) `asm ("foo %1,%0"::"r","r");' in C++ (parse error from the `::')?
Now, I'm not meaning to argue with you, but I thought the extended asm
statements were pretty good. Mind you, getting the constraints and the
operand modifiers (eg %k0) right is a PITA, especially when they're
pooly documented. So really, just what are the fundamental flaws in the
dedisng of the asm extensions? Maybe they can be fixed (yeah, right. I
can imagine the caos).
Leave others their otherness