> Hmm, what do you have in mind for such a situation? > > If extract_asm_operands returns NULL then asm_noperands will return -1. > > If extract_asm_operands returns non-NULL then asm_noperands deep-dives > the PATTERN of the insn (just like extract_asm_operands) and returns > >= 0 unless the insn is invalid.
I don't think that we want to replace calls to extract_asm_operands by calls to asm_noperands because that will make the compiler slower and less robust on invalid inputs. Why can't we write insn_with_asm_operands_p as GET_CODE (body) == ASM_INPUT || extract_asm_operands (body) != NULL and replace most of the cases with a call to it? -- Eric Botcazou
