On 06/21/2016 10:33 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Hi,
On 21/06/16 13:08, Michael Matz wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016, Andrew Haley wrote:
As said in the various threads about basic asms, all correctness
problems can be solved by making GCC more conservative in handling
them (or better said: not making it less conservative).
Well, yes. That's exactly why we've agreed to change basic asms to make
them clobber memory, i.e. to make GCC more conservative.
Exactly. But this thread is about something else, see subject.
Well, you brought up the idea of making GCC "less conservative". But
making GCC less conservative is something that we have not agreed to
do. So why did you even mention it if it wasn't relevant?
I think there's enough resistance to deprecating basic asms within a
function that we should probably punt that idea.
I do think we should look to stomp out our own uses of basic asms within
functions just from a long term maintenance standpoint.
Finally I think we should continue to bring the implementation of basic
asms more in-line with expectations and future proofing them since I'm
having a hard time seeing a reasonable path to deprecating their use.
Jeff
