This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: patch to add #pushdef, #popdef to cccp,cpplib

  In message <>you write:
  > 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 `::')?
I hadn't thought of that one :-)

There's no clean way to say things like:

  * I need to clobber a register of a certain class (we can only clobber
    explicit registers).

  * I need a particular value to appear in an input register at the
    start of the asm, then the register is available as a scratch
    register for the asm.  You can fake this with a dummy output
    operand, but there should be a cleaner way to describe this since
    it's a very common operation.
  * Fundamental incompatabilities between SMALL_REGISTER_CLASS machines
    and clobbering specific registers.

  * No way to expose what register classes correspond to constraint
    letters for input/output operands.

  * How do you describe to an asm-user how many registers they are
    allowed to use in an asm.    Sometimes it is not obvious that
    a particular operand may need multiple registers (to satisfy
    reloading).  Thus it is hard for a user to write a correct asms.

There's more, but thats what's come up within the last year.

  > 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).
asms are probably the best designed & implemented extension in the
compiler, yet we still have major problems with them.

Most of those problems can be fixed.  We'll probably end up doing it
at some point.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]