On 21/06/2016 17:53, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 21/06/16 17:43, Jeff Law wrote: > > 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. > > Me too. I wonder if there's anything else we can do to make basic asm > in a function a bit less of a time bomb. > > Andrew.
I do not like the idea to deprecate the basic asm at all, I must admit, but I think if we added a warning, that just contains a positive information, like "warning: basic asm semantic has been changed to implicitly clobber memory, if you have a problem with that, please convert this asm statement to extended asm syntax." Then that would possibly be acceptable for everybody here. We could still discuss, if that warning should be enabled with -Wall, -Wextra or only on request. Bernd.
