------- Comment #4 from Emmanuel dot Thome at inria dot fr 2008-05-29 14:09 ------- This leaves the ICE problem in attachment 15700. Is my assembly constraint bogus (in which case I'd prefer a nice diagnostic, as was the case in gcc 4.2.4, to an ICE) ? I tried three choices for the inline asm:
__asm__("psrlq %1,%0" : "+x,x"(x) : "x,m"(sh)); --> ICE __asm__("psrlq %2,%0" : "=x,x"(x) : "0,0"(x), "x,m"(sh)); --> ICE __asm__("psrlq %2,%0" : "+x,x"(x) : "0,0"(x), "x,m"(sh)); --> ok But having + _and_ a back reference is superfluous, isn't it ? E. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36370