>> To be clear, wouldn't asm("":) have the same effect?
>
> That does not matter. It'd require source-code changes to
> users' code.
My suggestion was to allow the exception to the "basic asm in a
function" warning, but change the docs to show using the new syntax.
This does not require any user code change. But it kinda does matter
whether or not it will work.
Copy/pasting my suggestion:
1) Change the docs to say asm("":), so future coders will do "the right
thing."
2) Allow the exception for v6.
3) Re-evaluate if-and-when we continue with the deprecation process.
It may not be clear from this, but I don't expect step 3 to happen until
at least v7.
And saying "the right thing" may be a bit flip. But if deprecating
basic asm is the path we are choosing, then telling users to use this
syntax is how the text should read. Assuming it works.
> BTW, does that syntax work for really olden gcc
> (say 2.95 era)?
The oldest docs I can find are 2.95.3, and they talk about the extended
asm syntax, so I assume so:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-2.95.3/gcc_4.html#SEC93
> Either way, we promised 'asm("")'. I'm pretty
> sure the empty string is identifiable.
It is. I've already updated my code to support this exception.
dw
