My bad. My version of makeinfo wasn't reporting these errors.
However, this isn't right either. There are two subsections that are
now under "Size of an asm" that should be under "Variables in Specified
Registers." How about this (attached)?
dw
On 5/17/2014 6:06 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
Hello!
Attached patch fixes:
md.texi:1057: warning: node next `Constraints' in menu `Asm Labels'
and in sectioning `Size of an asm' differ
extend.texi:7175: warning: node `Asm Labels' is next for `Size of an
asm' in sectioning but not in menu
extend.texi:7175: warning: node prev `Size of an asm' in menu
`Explicit Reg Vars' and in sectioning `Constraints' differ
extend.texi:7197: warning: node prev `Asm Labels' in menu
`Constraints' and in sectioning `Size of an asm' differ
extend.texi:7245: warning: node `Size of an asm' is next for `Explicit
Reg Vars' in menu but not in sectioning
as seen when compiling on Fedora 20.
2014-05-17 Uros Bizjak <ubiz...@gmail.com>
* doc/extend.texi (Size of an asm): Move node text according
to its @menu entry position.
Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, committed to mainline SVN.
Uros.
Index: extend.texi
===================================================================
--- extend.texi (revision 210575)
+++ extend.texi (working copy)
@@ -7267,28 +7267,6 @@
specified for that operand in the @code{asm}.)
@end itemize
-@node Size of an asm
-@subsection Size of an @code{asm}
-
-Some targets require that GCC track the size of each instruction used
-in order to generate correct code. Because the final length of the
-code produced by an @code{asm} statement is only known by the
-assembler, GCC must make an estimate as to how big it will be. It
-does this by counting the number of instructions in the pattern of the
-@code{asm} and multiplying that by the length of the longest
-instruction supported by that processor. (When working out the number
-of instructions, it assumes that any occurrence of a newline or of
-whatever statement separator character is supported by the assembler --
-typically @samp{;} --- indicates the end of an instruction.)
-
-Normally, GCC's estimate is adequate to ensure that correct
-code is generated, but it is possible to confuse the compiler if you use
-pseudo instructions or assembler macros that expand into multiple real
-instructions, or if you use assembler directives that expand to more
-space in the object file than is needed for a single instruction.
-If this happens then the assembler may produce a diagnostic saying that
-a label is unreachable.
-
@menu
* Global Reg Vars::
* Local Reg Vars::
@@ -7467,6 +7445,28 @@
asm ("sysint" : "=r" (result) : "0" (p1), "r" (p2));
@end smallexample
+@node Size of an asm
+@subsection Size of an @code{asm}
+
+Some targets require that GCC track the size of each instruction used
+in order to generate correct code. Because the final length of the
+code produced by an @code{asm} statement is only known by the
+assembler, GCC must make an estimate as to how big it will be. It
+does this by counting the number of instructions in the pattern of the
+@code{asm} and multiplying that by the length of the longest
+instruction supported by that processor. (When working out the number
+of instructions, it assumes that any occurrence of a newline or of
+whatever statement separator character is supported by the assembler --
+typically @samp{;} --- indicates the end of an instruction.)
+
+Normally, GCC's estimate is adequate to ensure that correct
+code is generated, but it is possible to confuse the compiler if you use
+pseudo instructions or assembler macros that expand into multiple real
+instructions, or if you use assembler directives that expand to more
+space in the object file than is needed for a single instruction.
+If this happens then the assembler may produce a diagnostic saying that
+a label is unreachable.
+
@node Alternate Keywords
@section Alternate Keywords
@cindex alternate keywords
