[PING] [PATCH] Fix asm X constraint (PR inline-asm/59155)

Jeff Law law@redhat.com
Thu Jun 9 16:30:00 GMT 2016

On 06/06/2016 01:40 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 09:27:56PM +0200, Marc Glisse wrote:
>> The last one would miss floating point registers (no 2 platforms use the
>> same letter for those, hence my quest for something more generic).
>> The goal of the experiment is described in PR59159 (for which "+X" is
>> unlikely to be the right answer, in particular because it is meaningless for
>> constants). I don't know in what context people use the "X" constraint, or
>> even better "=X"...
> X constraint has been added mainly for uses in match_scratch like:
> (clobber (match_scratch:SI 2 "=X,X,X,&r"))
> or when the predicate takes care of everything and it is not needed to
> specify anything further:
>   [(set (match_operand:SWI12 0 "push_operand" "=X")
>         (match_operand:SWI12 1 "nonmemory_no_elim_operand" "rn"))]
> Using it in inline asm generally has resulted in lots of issues, including
> ICEs etc., so nothing I'd recommend to use.
So would it make sense to define it as not available for use in ASMs?  I 
realize that's potentially a user-visible change, but it might be a 
reasonable one to make.


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list