On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 08:41:22PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote: > Isn't "asm" conditionally supported for ISO C++? In which case it's not > mandatory and semantics are implementation defined.
Yes. > My strong preference is still to document the desired semantics for GCC > and treat anything that does not adhere to those semantics as a bug. I agree, but I think the semantics should be what they currently are. If we want a "clobbers everything" version we could make a new syntax for that, so that not all current asm-without-operands has to pay the hefty price. > I think a non-default warning is fine. A default warning (or > -Wall/-Westra) is probably undesirable, though I'm still willing to be > convinced either way on that. I don't think the warning is a good idea until we have decided what direction we want this to go in. Segher
