Am 13.12.2013 18:34, schrieb H. S. Teoh:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 03:30:21PM +0100, Paulo Pinto wrote:
[...]
Maybe the best way to fix this issue is to follow what other
language standards do (C++, Ada) and only define that inline
assembly is possible and how the entry point, e.g. asm () looks
like.
The real inline assembly syntax is then left implementation
specific.
But isn't this what Walter was arguing against? He wanted to standardize
inline assembly syntax for x86 because leaving it up to implementation
resulted in the current mess of Intel syntax vs. GNU syntax (which can
be extremely confusing if you're not well-versed in both syntaxes, since
the order of operands are swapped and there are some subtle notational
differences).
T
Yeah, but it is an easier path to have something standardized that
corresponds to reality, than making all frontends agree on the same
syntax and semantics for inline assembler.
If I understood correctly the current issues, that is.
--
Paulo
