Bruce Evans wrote:
So by now you are saying that using "__volatile" in this case
is the wrong solution and that using "cc" is a style bug. How
am I supposed to tell the compiler that the inline assembler
alters the condition codes then, which it apparently needs to
know as it at shown to otherwise generate broken code even
when using a single __asm() for the istructions.
Using volatile is wrong in this and most cases.
Use "cc" when it isn't a style bug :-). I guess this is on some CPUs
including sparc64 now, and in all new asms on i386.
What is the rule for "cc" being a style bug? In style(9) nothing is
mentioned. The only sensible rule I can think of is "if the assembler
code destroys the condition codes, add "cc" to the clobber list, so GCC
is informed about this and can get the data depedencies right".
Regards
Christoph
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
