On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 04:29:50PM +0100, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >>It seems to me that it would be better to remove the feature, forcing what
> >>must be an extremely small number of users to audit and update to extended
> >>asm.
> >
> >Should asm("bla"); then be an extended asm with no input, no outputs,
> >no (non-automatic) clobbers? That would be the most straightforward and
> >logical semantics, but will it break user code?
>
> I'm suggesting that we don't accept that at all inside a function. One
> must audit the source and make a conscious decision to write asm("bla" : );
> instead.
Ah, or excepting asm("bla") and treating it just like asm("bla" : ), but
giving a warning? That will get people to migrate at least.
> Accepting basic asm outside of a function is perfectly ok, since that's
> just a mechanism by which one can inject complete assembly routines into a
> C translation unit.
Of course. You cannot have extended asm outside of functions at all.
Segher
