uweigand added a comment. In D82862#2513044 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D82862#2513044>, @rnk wrote:
> In D82862#2512908 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D82862#2512908>, @uweigand wrote: > >> So why do you want GNU inline asm for clang-cl anyway? I thought the whole >> point of clang-cl was to be compatible with the Microsoft Visual Studio >> compiler, which I understand only supports the MS asm syntax? > > We have users, in this case, I think it's V8, who would prefer to use > gcc-style module level assembly if it is available. Their motivation is > somewhat arbitrary, but generally, clang-cl supports a variety of extensions, > some inherited from GCC, in all modes. Part of the point of switching > compilers from MSVC to clang is to get access to those extensions. I see, thanks. I think what would make sense to preserve existing behavior while still allowing other platforms to use different dialects for GNU inline asm would be to move the decision which dialect to use for inline asm to the back-end. I've posted a patch along those lines as https://reviews.llvm.org/D95444 - I hope we can continue the discussion there. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D82862/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D82862 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
