inline asm and multi-alternative constraints

[David Wohlferd]

On 11/9/2015 1:52 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/07/2015 12:50 AM, David Wohlferd wrote:
>>
>> - Starting with 'modifiers', "=+&" and (reluctantly) "%" seem reasonable
>> for inline asm.  But both "#*" seem sketchy.
> Right.  =+& are no-brainer yes, as are the constants 0-9.  % is 
> probably OK as well.
>
> #* are similar to !? in that they are inherently tied into the 
> register class preferencing implementation and documenting them would 
> be inadvisable.

Actually, #* are already doc'ed in the user guide.  Are you advising 
they be removed?

If so, the attached patch does this.  It also removes references to 
define_peephole2 and define_splits from the user guide version of this 
page.  There are other parts of this page that are more md than ug, but 
these are the ones that annoyed me the most.

dw

Original: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Modifiers.html
Proposed: http://limegreensocks.com/gcc/Modifiers.html

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: md.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1047 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/attachments/20151111/396479da/attachment.bin>