This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 2/2] allow certain kinds of inputs to top level asm()-s
- From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich at suse dot com>
- To: "Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, "Jan Hubicka" <jh at suse dot de>
- Cc: <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 07:31:54 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] allow certain kinds of inputs to top level asm()-s
- References: <4E85C79A0200007800058BFC@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <CAFiYyc0QvuYf7S_aMkqHs5OVns5j2bpT6DY+2uAcY=iA6OyRaQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E85D95D0200007800058C88@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <20111005105427.682q0ytaascck4og@imap.suse.de>
>>> On 05.10.11 at 10:54, Jan Hubicka <jh@suse.de> wrote:
>>> we have, like specifying the set of symbols _defined_ by a toplevel
>>> asm, right? I might misremember but sth like
>>>
>>> extern void foo (void);
>>> asm("" :::: "foo");
>>>
>>> was supposed to do the trick. Or should we treat those as outputs
>>> (given you use inputs for symbol uses)?
>>
>> I don't recall any discussion of how to deal with symbols defined by a
>> top level asm - I was just asked to follow the "normal" asm syntax in
>> having two colons in the middle instead of one as I had originally (not
>> expecting any use for outputs here).
>>
>>> Honza, do you remember if we decided on anything here?
>
> To be honest, I don't think we actually dicussed some particular
> syntax or my memory is even worse ;). We will need to make one.
> In the above example, I don't think quotes about foo is needed. We
> actualy provide definition of the declaration, so it should be just
> the decl itself, not a string.
With there not being a clear direction (and me not having the time
to extend what I have currently), is there any chance that what's
there could go in then, for someone else to extend?
Thanks, Jan
> Honza
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Richard.
>>
>>
>>