https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104236
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
>or perhaps %= needs to be expanded sooner?
The basic blocks are exactly the same. The %= is only there to resolve the
issue where GCC duplicates the inline-asm and needs to be resolved at the end
of compiling when outputting the asm itself.
I don't see why even in this case would cause a problem as you have an
inline-asm which is the same as the other and they are combined together.
I think the original code should have had the two inline-asm combined together
instead of having them seperated.
That is:
__asm__ __volatile__(".byte 0x0f, 0x0b\n"
".Lreachable%=:
.pushsection .discard.reachable
.long .Lreachable%= - .
.popsection
" : : : "memory");
....
__asm__ __volatile__(".byte 0x0f, 0x0b\n"
".Lreachable%=:
.pushsection .discard.reachable
.long .Lreachable%= - .
.popsection
" : "i"(0) : "memory");
That will fix the issue at hand in the code itself really.
Even if you used 1: and 1b inside the inline-asm you would run into the same
issue.
