https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16331
Gerald Pfeifer gerald at pfeifer dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16331
Christian Häggström gcc at kalvdans dot no-ip.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gcc at
--- Comment #13 from thutt at vmware dot com 2009-02-10 14:34 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
(In reply to comment #11)
Uros, how hard to support this in x86 backend?
snip
OTOH, constraints should be used to support correct register
allocation for machine instructions, not to
--- Comment #14 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-02-10 15:20 ---
OTOH, constraints should be used to support correct register
allocation for machine instructions, not to emulate ABI in order to
support calls from inside asm statements.
Please indulge me for a moment.
What
--- Comment #8 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-02-09 20:46 ---
Reopened.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-02-09 20:46 ---
*** Bug 39139 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-02-09 20:47
---
The rational for this request is at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17274
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16331
--- Comment #11 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-02-09 20:49
---
Uros, how hard to support this in x86 backend?
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #12 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2009-02-09 22:43 ---
(In reply to comment #11)
Uros, how hard to support this in x86 backend?
I remember there were concerns when xmm0 single-register constraint was
introduced... We need new constraint letter and new regclass entry. I
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-09-04
19:05 ---
No feedbacck in 3 months.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING
--- Additional Comments From falk at debian dot org 2005-07-02 10:17
---
(In reply to comment #4)
The first call of pokus() completely ignores the assigned value of the
variable
r8 -- instead the value '6' into it for the call. The second call assumes the
the register r8 should
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-02
01:27 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
__asm__ __volatile__(call pokus
This is wrong, you don't want to use call in an asm at all.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16331
12 matches
Mail list logo
