On 12/1/2015 8:08 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> Formatting nit: the '== NULL_TREE)' should line up with the start of
> 'lookup_attribute'.
> Same here.
Ok. Other than that, how do we proceed here?
When pursuing a course to "deprecate and later completely remove basic
asm within functions," I assume I need a global maintainer or two to
sign off on this?
While Richard Henderson's post to that effect may have gotten lost in
all the discussion (and my ultra-slow-motion roll out plan may have
confused things further), that's what's meant by #5 on my "List of
questions for a person in authority":
1) Is the idea of changing basic asm to clobber things dead?
2) Is creating a warning for the use of "basic asm inside a function"
the solution for this issue?
3) Should the warning be enabled by default in v6?
4) Should the warning be enabled by -Wall or -Wextra?
5) Should the v6 docs explicitly describe using "basic asm inside a
function" as deprecated?
Saying it's dead in the docs is the first step to making it dead in the
code. This patch just implements an optional warning (unless #3,4 crank
it up to a default warning), but the intent is that eventually (v7? v8?)
this turns into a fatal error.
One off-hand comment by someone (even a gm) doesn't seem quite enough to
approve this. And some guidance about how quickly we want to get there
would also be useful. I've been trying to do the work, but I could use
some direction from someone who understands the gcc vision.
dw
