>>> On 30.09.11 at 14:42, Richard Guenther <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>> This is so that use of symbols referenced in these asm()-s can be
>> properly tracked by the compiler, just like is the case for all other
>> asm()-s. I'm particularly looking forward to use this in the Linux
>> kernel. It is certainly not very useful in PIC code, at least not with
>> some extra care.
>
> I miss documentation for this.
Just like on the first submission - if top level asm-s as they are without
this change were documented somewhere, I would be happy to extend
that documentation. But honestly, I don't think it's appropriate to ask
me to start writing documentation for this from ground up - that should
be done by someone more familiar with the base feature, so that
eventual caveats can be pointed out, and it can be put at a proper
(rather than guessed) location in the documentation.
> This does not address the other issue
> we have, like specifying the set of symbols _defined_ by a toplevel
> asm, right? I might misremember but sth like
>
> extern void foo (void);
> asm("" :::: "foo");
>
> was supposed to do the trick. Or should we treat those as outputs
> (given you use inputs for symbol uses)?
I don't recall any discussion of how to deal with symbols defined by a
top level asm - I was just asked to follow the "normal" asm syntax in
having two colons in the middle instead of one as I had originally (not
expecting any use for outputs here).
Jan
> Honza, do you remember if we decided on anything here?
>
> Thanks,
> Richard.
