MS/CW-style inline assembly for GCC

[Dale Johannesen]

On May 6, 2004, at 6:40 PM, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>> For me, compatibility is the number one priority. Ease of use comes
>
> That's what I figured. :-)
>
> 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.

I've been staying out of this since I'm of the "they should be writing 
.s files" school,  but
criticizing the idea *on these grounds* seems unreasonable.    Having 
more users
of GCC benefits the entire community, not just Apple.  Maybe more so; 
it's not like Apple
is making any money off GCC.  More users means better quality, more 
help, maybe even
more development money from particularly happy users.