------- Comment #4 from Emmanuel dot Thome at inria dot fr 2008-05-29 14:09
-------
This leaves the ICE problem in attachment 15700. Is my assembly constraint
bogus (in which case I'd prefer a nice diagnostic, as was the case in gcc
4.2.4, to an ICE) ? I tried three choices for the inline asm:
__asm__("psrlq %1,%0" : "+x,x"(x) : "x,m"(sh)); --> ICE
__asm__("psrlq %2,%0" : "=x,x"(x) : "0,0"(x), "x,m"(sh)); --> ICE
__asm__("psrlq %2,%0" : "+x,x"(x) : "0,0"(x), "x,m"(sh)); --> ok
But having + _and_ a back reference is superfluous, isn't it ?
E.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36370
