[patch] PR33932 - extend documentation about top-level asm blocks

[Mark Mitchell]

Steven Bosscher wrote:

Thanks for working on this.

> +optimize.  Similarly, calls to labels defined in an @code{asm} block are
> +not supported.

Aren't they supported provided that you use the code section directives?
  Your example looks like a call to such a label to me.  So, I suspect
you're saying something meaningful, but I'm failing to understand it. :-)

> +Without the @code{.text} and @code{.previous} assembler macros, the
> +@code{asm} block could end up in a non-code section, and calling @code{tst()}
> +at runtime would probably not give the expected result.

I think we should note here that .text and .previous are specific to a
particular assembler and OS.  Otherwise, people may think this is
cookbook stuff that they should just put in.

Something like:

Note: both the choice of section and the directives that you should use
to indicate to the assembler that your code goes in a particular section
depend on your assembly code, your assembler, and your target operating
system.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713