Hi!
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 04:47:37PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 12/2/18 11:38 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >PR55681 observes that currently only one qualifier is allowed for
> >inline asm, so that e.g. "volatile asm" is allowed, "const asm" is also
> >okay (with a warning), but "const v
On 12/2/18 11:38 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
PR55681 observes that currently only one qualifier is allowed for
inline asm, so that e.g. "volatile asm" is allowed, "const asm" is also
okay (with a warning), but "const volatile asm" gives an error. Also
"goto" has to be last.
This patch changes
On Sun, 2 Dec 2018, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> PR55681 observes that currently only one qualifier is allowed for
> inline asm, so that e.g. "volatile asm" is allowed, "const asm" is also
> okay (with a warning), but "const volatile asm" gives an error. Also
> "goto" has to be last.
>
> This pat
PR55681 observes that currently only one qualifier is allowed for
inline asm, so that e.g. "volatile asm" is allowed, "const asm" is also
okay (with a warning), but "const volatile asm" gives an error. Also
"goto" has to be last.
This patch changes things so that only "asm-qualifiers" are allowed
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 12:11:30AM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>
> > So "asm const restrict" is allowed, but "asm const const restrict" isn't.
>
> No, asm const restrict isn't allowed. volatile is allowed; const and
> restrict are allowed with war
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> So "asm const restrict" is allowed, but "asm const const restrict" isn't.
No, asm const restrict isn't allowed. volatile is allowed; const and
restrict are allowed with warnings because that replicates what the old
bison parser allowed; but at m
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 11:14:45PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>
> > > What's the basis for allowing duplicates for C but not for C++?
> >
> > It is the status quo. It would make sense to allow duplicates for C++ as
> > well, sure. If that is pref
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > What's the basis for allowing duplicates for C but not for C++?
>
> It is the status quo. It would make sense to allow duplicates for C++ as
> well, sure. If that is preferred I can make a patch for it?
Duplicate qualifiers are allowed *in dec
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 09:13:13PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> I'd expect testcases to be added for the new syntax variants (duplicate
> qualifiers / goto and new orderings thereof).
Okay.
> There's a description of the syntax in extend.texi:
>
> @example
> asm @r{[}volatile@r{]} ( @var{Assemb
I'd expect testcases to be added for the new syntax variants (duplicate
qualifiers / goto and new orderings thereof).
There's a description of the syntax in extend.texi:
@example
asm @r{[}volatile@r{]} ( @var{AssemblerTemplate}
: @var{OutputOperands}
@r{[} : @
+cc: C and C++ maintainers. Sorry I forgot before :-/
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 05:30:33PM +, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> PR55681 observes that currently only one qualifier is allowed for
> inline asm, so that e.g. "volatile asm" is allowed, "const asm" is also
> okay (with a warning), but "con
PR55681 observes that currently only one qualifier is allowed for
inline asm, so that e.g. "volatile asm" is allowed, "const asm" is also
okay (with a warning), but "const volatile asm" gives an error. Also
"const const asm" is an error (while "const const int" is okay for C),
"goto" has to be las
12 matches
Mail list logo
