[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

Andrew Pinski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Known to fail||7.4.0, 8.3.0
   Target Milestone|--- |7.5
  Known to work||7.5.0, 8.4.0, 9.1.0

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

Jakub Jelinek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |RESOLVED
 Resolution|--- |FIXED

--- Comment #36 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
I think so.

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[egallager at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

--- Comment #35 from Eric Gallager  ---
(In reply to Matthias Klose from comment #34)
> Author: doko
> Date: Sun Mar 10 07:25:13 2019
> New Revision: 269546
> 
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269546=gcc=rev
> Log:
> gcc/cp/
> 
> 2019-04-10  Matthias Klose  
> 
>   Backport from the gcc-8 branch
>   2019-03-07  Jakub Jelinek  
> 
>   PR c++/89585
>   * parser.c (cp_parser_asm_definition): Parse asm qualifiers even
>   at toplevel, but diagnose them.
> 
> gcc/testsuite/
> 
> 2019-04-10  Matthias Klose  
> 
>   Backport from the gcc-8 branch
>   2019-03-07  Jakub Jelinek  
> 
>   PR c++/89585
>   * g++.dg/asm-qual-3.C: Adjust expected diagnostics.
> 
> Modified:
> branches/gcc-7-branch/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
> branches/gcc-7-branch/gcc/cp/parser.c
> branches/gcc-7-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
> branches/gcc-7-branch/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/asm-qual-3.C

Is this fixed now?

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[doko at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

--- Comment #34 from Matthias Klose  ---
Author: doko
Date: Sun Mar 10 07:25:13 2019
New Revision: 269546

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269546=gcc=rev
Log:
gcc/cp/

2019-04-10  Matthias Klose  

Backport from the gcc-8 branch
2019-03-07  Jakub Jelinek  

PR c++/89585
* parser.c (cp_parser_asm_definition): Parse asm qualifiers even
at toplevel, but diagnose them.

gcc/testsuite/

2019-04-10  Matthias Klose  

Backport from the gcc-8 branch
2019-03-07  Jakub Jelinek  

PR c++/89585
* g++.dg/asm-qual-3.C: Adjust expected diagnostics.

Modified:
branches/gcc-7-branch/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-7-branch/gcc/cp/parser.c
branches/gcc-7-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-7-branch/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/asm-qual-3.C

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

--- Comment #33 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Mar  8 07:45:23 2019
New Revision: 269483

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269483=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/89585
* parser.c (cp_parser_asm_definition): Just warn instead of error
on volatile qualifier outside of function body.

* g++.dg/asm-qual-3.C: Adjust expected diagnostics for toplevel
asm volatile.

Modified:
trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/cp/parser.c
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/asm-qual-3.C

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[harald at gigawatt dot nl]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

--- Comment #32 from Harald van Dijk  ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #30)
> For 8.x we do not want to warn, that will break people building with -Werror.
> For 9.x, Jason said that perhaps we should warn instead of error for
> volatile, so I'll submit incremental patch.

Good point about -Werror.

The suggestion for a warning was based on it remaining an error in GCC 9. If it
is going to be downgraded to a warning there, there's no point in a warning in
GCC 8, so I'm happy with that approach. Thank you!

One comment about the patch: it looks like resetting volatile_p (which you
removed) and inline_p (which is still in) will have no effect, since the one
use is conditional on parser->in_function_body anyway. Am I missing a use
there? If not, is that in because the code is easier to understand if it is, or
is it an oversight?

The reset of goto_p affects how the remainder will be parsed, so that
definitely does have an effect.

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

--- Comment #31 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
Created attachment 45914
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45914=edit
gcc9-pr89585.patch

Incremental patch to warn for GCC 9 instead of error.

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

--- Comment #30 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
(In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #28)
> Okay, the version without a warning was checked in. Should I have suggested
> the warning elsewhere?

For 8.x we do not want to warn, that will break people building with -Werror.
For 9.x, Jason said that perhaps we should warn instead of error for volatile,
so I'll submit incremental patch.

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[eb at emlix dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

--- Comment #29 from Rolf Eike Beer  ---
I guess this would also need a backport into gcc-7-branch as the "asm inline"
changes were backported also there, no?

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[harald at gigawatt dot nl]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

--- Comment #28 from Harald van Dijk  ---
Okay, the version without a warning was checked in. Should I have suggested the
warning elsewhere?

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

--- Comment #27 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar  7 08:32:09 2019
New Revision: 269452

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269452=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/89585
* parser.c (cp_parser_asm_definition): Parse asm qualifiers even
at toplevel, but diagnose them.

* g++.dg/asm-qual-3.C: Adjust expected diagnostics.

Modified:
branches/gcc-8-branch/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-8-branch/gcc/cp/parser.c
branches/gcc-8-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
branches/gcc-8-branch/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/asm-qual-3.C

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

--- Comment #26 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
Author: jakub
Date: Thu Mar  7 08:18:36 2019
New Revision: 269451

URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=269451=gcc=rev
Log:
PR c++/89585
* doc/extend.texi (Basic Asm): Document qualifiers are not allowed
at toplevel.

* parser.c (cp_parser_asm_definition): Parse asm qualifiers even
at toplevel, but diagnose them.

* g++.dg/asm-qual-3.C: Adjust expected diagnostics.

Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/cp/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/cp/parser.c
trunk/gcc/doc/extend.texi
trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/asm-qual-3.C

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[harald at gigawatt dot nl]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

Harald van Dijk  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Attachment #45910|0   |1
is obsolete||

--- Comment #25 from Harald van Dijk  ---
Created attachment 45912
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45912=edit
gcc-8-pr89585-warn-v2.patch

Re-done based on the GCC 9 patch, modified to issue a warning for asm volatile
on GCC 8. Since Qt 5 has already been tested, I looked at Qt 4.8.7 and verified
that bitwise identical code is generated for what GCC 8.3 produces when the
volatile keyword is removed, and that the warning is issued when the volatile
keyword is left in:

../3rdparty/javascriptcore/JavaScriptCore/jit/JITStubs.cpp:483:5: warning: asm
qualifier outside of function body
 asm volatile (
 ^~~~
../3rdparty/javascriptcore/JavaScriptCore/jit/JITStubs.cpp:518:5: warning: asm
qualifier outside of function body
 asm volatile (
 ^~~~
../3rdparty/javascriptcore/JavaScriptCore/jit/JITStubs.cpp:534:5: warning: asm
qualifier outside of function body
 asm volatile (
 ^~~~

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[harald at gigawatt dot nl]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

--- Comment #24 from Harald van Dijk  ---
Created attachment 45910
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45910=edit
gcc-8-pr89585-warn.patch

(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #21)
> Created attachment 45904 [details]
> gcc8-pr89585.patch
> 
> The 8.x version would be like this.

Depending on whether this will remain an error in GCC 9, would it make sense to
have a warning for file scope asm volatile, like so? (Minimally tested so far.
If it makes sense, I can re-do it based on the updated GCC 9 patch.)

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

Jakub Jelinek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Attachment #45903|0   |1
is obsolete||

--- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
Created attachment 45909
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45909=edit
gcc9-pr89585.patch

Updated trunk patch based on IRC discussions with Segher.

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[eb at emlix dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

--- Comment #22 from Rolf Eike Beer  ---
I can confirm that with gcc 8.3 with the gcc8-patch Qt 5.12.1 builds fine.

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
Created attachment 45904
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45904=edit
gcc8-pr89585.patch

The 8.x version would be like this.

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[harald at gigawatt dot nl]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

--- Comment #20 from Harald van Dijk  ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #19)
> Created attachment 45903 [details]
> gcc9-pr89585.patch

Thanks. I'll test this on GCC 8, with trivial changes to accept asm volatile,
when I get back home.

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

--- Comment #19 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
Created attachment 45903
  --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=45903=edit
gcc9-pr89585.patch

Untested patch for better diagnostics of this in GCC 9, for GCC 8 we could just
not diagnose volatile and ignore it.

Now, looking at documentation, I'd say that the C parser didn't match the
documentation and the C++ parser did (and no longer does), because we said that
volatile is optional on Basic Asm, volatile and goto are allowed on Extended
Asm, that at toplevel only Basic Asm is allowed and for Basic Asm:
"The optional volatile qualifier has no effect.
All basic asm blocks are implicitly volatile."

To me that looks like a strong reason to at least accept it again in 8.x, it
wasn't any kind of unspecified behavior, it was documented to be ignored.
And perhaps we could reconsider this even for GCC 9 and allow and ignore even
in C at toplevel.

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[eb at emlix dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

--- Comment #18 from Rolf Eike Beer  ---
I would have expected something that is more like the error message in this
case:

class foo {
  static void bar() const;
};

error: static member function ‘static void foo::bar()’ cannot have cv-qualifier

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[segher at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

--- Comment #17 from Segher Boessenkool  ---
Hello Harald,

Yes, that is what I would like you guys to do.  But I'll stop working
on this now, that is fine as well.

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[harald at gigawatt dot nl]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

--- Comment #16 from Harald van Dijk  ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #15)

Please stop with the unnecessary and unhelpful insults. This is the second time
I've had to ask you that.

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[segher at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

--- Comment #15 from Segher Boessenkool  ---
(In reply to Rolf Eike Beer from comment #14)

> The other thing is: given that 8.3 does not show a diagnostic message that
> is at least remotely helpful this looks for any end user just like a
> compiler bug.

Don't exaggerate please.  It gives exactly the same error as when you would
say "asm double" or similar.  It is perfectly clear: the "volatile" there
was not expected, it is a programming mistake, it has no meaning.

How do you expect "end users" who have no idea what they are doing to compile
anything ever?

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[eb at emlix dot com]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

--- Comment #14 from Rolf Eike Beer  ---
See https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-74196

That's how I found this at all: the latest current releases don't build
together. And I guess that most projects that somehow are descendants of KJS
will be affected, as seen here: https://bugs.gentoo.org/679330

The other thing is: given that 8.3 does not show a diagnostic message that is
at least remotely helpful this looks for any end user just like a compiler bug.
I hope gcc 9 will say what it doesn't like, and maybe even suggest a fixit. For
8.x I would very much welcome that it just works as before, maybe with a clear
error message.

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[harald at gigawatt dot nl]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

--- Comment #13 from Harald van Dijk  ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #12)
> This is wrong too since some of what -fstrict-overflow did was enabled at
> -O1 (and -O2) before hand; just the option was added for GCC 4.2.0 and only
> enabled at -O2 and above.

Thanks, I stand corrected. The basic idea should still hold though, even if I
picked a bad example.

FWIW, I checked the current release of Qt 5, and just grepping the sources, I
still see file scope asm volatile in there.

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski  ---
(In reply to Harald van Dijk from comment #11)
> 
> That doesn't mean it's acceptable to change how that's handled in a minor
> release.  The whole concept of a release series doesn't make sense if you
> take that route. Take a look at how signed integer overflow was handled, for
> instance. We all know that's invalid and has always been invalid, but the
> change to enable -fstrict-overflow at -O2 was saved for the next major
> release and clearly documented in the GCC 4.2 Changes page
> .
> 
> A release series should mean that it is safe for distros to upgrade within
> the release series. Right now, it's not.

This is wrong too since some of what -fstrict-overflow did was enabled at -O1
(and -O2) before hand; just the option was added for GCC 4.2.0 and only enabled
at -O2 and above.

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[harald at gigawatt dot nl]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

--- Comment #11 from Harald van Dijk  ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #10)
> 1) It wasn't defined behaviour before, so nothing changed in that regard.
> Many changes changes behaviour on invalid code.  Not all invalid code gets
> a diagnostic.

That doesn't mean it's acceptable to change how that's handled in a minor
release.  The whole concept of a release series doesn't make sense if you take
that route. Take a look at how signed integer overflow was handled, for
instance. We all know that's invalid and has always been invalid, but the
change to enable -fstrict-overflow at -O2 was saved for the next major release
and clearly documented in the GCC 4.2 Changes page
.

A release series should mean that it is safe for distros to upgrade within the
release series. Right now, it's not.

> 2) Incompatible clang behaviour on GNU C extensions is not GCC's fault.

There was no incompatible clang behaviour, so this comment does not make sense.
clang accepted the code with a warning where GCC accepted it without a warning,
but it behaved the same in both compilers, until GCC 8.3.

> 3) I've heard of only one program where this change showed this problem (Qt),
> and it has been fixed there long ago.  So silly me thought that was the end
> of it.

Long ago? It definitely breaks last years' releases, though I have not tested
with the most recent versions. Even if it didn't, distros are likely to be
stuck with supporting Qt 4.x for a while. When they bump to GCC 9, they know
they have to deal with breakage and patch code, but when they bump to GCC 8.3,
this is a nasty surprise.

> And then my backport was approved, too.

Your backport was approved after a highly misleading message on the mailing
list. You wrote:

> I'd like to backport the "asm inline" series to 8 branch and 7 branch.
> The patches are identical to trunk, except I added a patch 8/8 that
> makes these branches not error on code it only warned on before (that
> is, C code that uses restrict or const as asm qualifier).

Technically, this is 100% true. What's missing from this is that it *does*
error on code it previously accepted *without* a warning. Whether it would have
been approved if you had included that bit in your e-mail is something we'll
never know.

> 4) Yeah, a more specific diagnostic might be nice (not all qualifiers are
> asm qualifiers).  This should go to trunk first then, of course.

Given that any changes to re-accept the code would be limited to GCC 8 only,
that probably shouldn't go on trunk. But if a change on trunk to give a decent
diagnostic can be trivially tweaked to allow the code on GCC 8 again, with a
warning, then great! I'll be happy to help test anything that can be backported
to GCC 8 to allow this again.

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[segher at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

--- Comment #10 from Segher Boessenkool  ---
1) It wasn't defined behaviour before, so nothing changed in that regard.
Many changes changes behaviour on invalid code.  Not all invalid code gets
a diagnostic.

2) Incompatible clang behaviour on GNU C extensions is not GCC's fault.

3) I've heard of only one program where this change showed this problem (Qt),
and it has been fixed there long ago.  So silly me thought that was the end
of it.  And then my backport was approved, too.

4) Yeah, a more specific diagnostic might be nice (not all qualifiers are
asm qualifiers).  This should go to trunk first then, of course.

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[jakub at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

Jakub Jelinek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek  ---
I actually agree it would be better to accept it for the rest of 8.x lifetime. 
Yes, it doesn't make any sense in the code and people will eventually fix it
for 9.x.

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[harald at gigawatt dot nl]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

--- Comment #8 from Harald van Dijk  ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #7)
> Since it's now rejected with 8.3 there's no point in accepting it again
> (IMHO).

The point in accepting it again would be that people can skip 8.3 because of
this and upgrade from 8.2 to a future 8.4 without worrying too much about
existing code being broken. The alternative is that people who have to deal
with the possibility of old code are forced treat 8.2 as the last release in
the 8 series, and to treat 8.3 and newer as if they were a new major version.

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

Richard Biener  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Keywords||diagnostic
 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
   Last reconfirmed||2019-03-05
 CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
 Ever confirmed|0   |1

--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener  ---
Since it's now rejected with 8.3 there's no point in accepting it again (IMHO).

But the diagnostic could be improved.

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

Andrew Pinski  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||eb at emlix dot com

--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski  ---
*** Bug 89589 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[harald at gigawatt dot nl]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

--- Comment #5 from Harald van Dijk  ---
According to , the
GCC 8 backport was not supposed to break existing code, it was supposed to warn
about code that would become invalid in GCC 9. It seems like this case was
missed.

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[harald at gigawatt dot nl]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

Harald van Dijk  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
 Resolution|DUPLICATE   |---

--- Comment #4 from Harald van Dijk  ---
Re-opening. Marking this as invalid for GCC 9 is fine. Breaking existing code
without so much as a warning in a minor release is not.

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[egallager at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

Eric Gallager  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
 Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE

--- Comment #3 from Eric Gallager  ---
dup of bug 89443

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 89443 ***

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[harald at gigawatt dot nl]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

--- Comment #2 from Harald van Dijk  ---
This was intentionally(!) broken in a backport,
https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision=267534, which
specifically adds a test that this results not even in a user-friendly error
message, but a bad syntax error, even though it had previously been accepted.

[Bug c++/89585] GCC 8.3: asm volatile no longer accepted at file scope

[harald at gigawatt dot nl]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89585

--- Comment #1 from Harald van Dijk  ---
(Sorry, to be clear, the comment about -Wasm-ignored-qualifier is about a
warning clang emits for this construct, not a GCC warning.)