This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
[snip]
Which part of the goal is more important to you? The compatiblity with the proprietary compiler, or the abstract ease-of-use?
The key problems with inline assembly schemes are (a) allowing the assembly to access local variables in the containing code, and (b) describing the effects of the assembly code to the optimizers.
Why do you insist on describing the effects to the optimizers for achieving *compatibility* with other vendors? Some messages on this thread assumes that MS/CW have some magic mechanism for producing optimized code on the presence of inline asm, by means of "understanding" what the asm does. I don't know about CW, but the MS docs basically says that the compiler assumes the worse case and, if the compiler fails to do that, the programmer is guilty. See below.
So, let's take truth-and-beauty out of the discussion; this isn't about a better technology. It might or might not be better, but that's not the root of the issue. The bottom line is that Apple wants CW syntax because it wants to convert existing CW users to GCC users. To do that, it wants to be able to say "you can just recompile your code" rathern than "you have to rewrite your code". In fact, for all widely-used CW extensions, Apple would probably like to see them in GCC. It's easy to see the Apple product-marketing logic here.
+------------------------------------------------------------+ | Alexander M. Rosenberg <mailto:alexr@_spies.com> | | Nobody cares what I say. Remove the underscore to mail me. |
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |