gcc-5-20160621 is now available

2016-06-21 Thread gccadmin
Snapshot gcc-5-20160621 is now available on ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/5-20160621/ and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details. This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 5 SVN branch with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-5

Re: Deprecating basic asm in a function - What now?

2016-06-21 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 06:29:45PM +, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > 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 mem

Re: Deprecating basic asm in a function - What now?

2016-06-21 Thread Bernd Edlinger
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

Re: Deprecating basic asm in a function - What now?

2016-06-21 Thread Andrew Haley
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. > >

Re: Deprecating basic asm in a function - What now?

2016-06-21 Thread Jeff Law
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

Re: Deprecating basic asm in a function - What now?

2016-06-21 Thread Andrew Haley
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). >> >>

Re: Deprecating basic asm in a function - What now?

2016-06-21 Thread Michael Matz
Hi, 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 t

Importing gnulib inside gcc

2016-06-21 Thread ayush goel
I’m working on importing gnulib inside gcc so that gcc can leverage it’s functionality (and possible replace certain dependencies from libiberty).  I have imported the required gnulib modules in a directory inside the gcc directory, along with the necessary configure.ac and Makefile.in require

Re: Deprecating basic asm in a function - What now?

2016-06-21 Thread Andrew Haley
Hi, On 20/06/16 19:01, Michael Matz wrote: > On Mon, 20 Jun 2016, Andrew Haley wrote: > >> On 20/06/16 18:36, Michael Matz wrote: >>> I see zero gain by deprecating them and only churn. What would be the >>> advantage again? >> >> Correctness. > > As said in the various threads about basic as