------- Comment #21 from ian at airs dot com 2009-02-09 22:37 -------
I agree with Jakub that the original test case, and the one in comment #7,
appear to conform to the documented gcc extension. I think that gcc has to
treat this sort of code as valid, and not break it. We can't casually or
accidentally break our documented extensions.
Unfortunately this means that in a function which contains both local register
variables and an asm, we must severely restrict any code motion which may
involve a function call or the use of hidden registers. We should explicitly
express a dependency between any asm and any local register variable in scope
for the asm. That won't solve the problem by itself, though.
--
ian at airs dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ian at airs dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39139
