"se...@t-online.de" writes:
Can you explain why __umul_tmp1 should not be an "early-clobber output"?
Because it is not written to before we're done with the input.
(I wrote this code close to 30 years ago. It is stll possible that it
is buggy, but it looks correct to me and it has been in
> With his change the tests pass so I think the change is reasonable.
>I disagree. If I am right that the inline asm is correct, changing it
>to avoid triggering a compiler bug is not a reasonable change. But
>perhaps I am wrong and the inline asm is buggy, but then somebody needs
>to explain
