On 10/19/2015 03:55 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 04:09:34PM -0700, David Wohlferd wrote:
I was hoping to modify the text to say that local register variables can
"only" be used to call Extended asm. This would greatly simplify this
section.
But it is not true: they ca
On 10/12/2015 05:09 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
Patch 3/3 is the update for the Local Register Variables page (attached).
This patch starts with a question. Looking at bug
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64951 (register variable
with template function) is this a bug that will be fixe
On 10/19/2015 03:42 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
+After defining a global register variable, for the duration of
+the current compilation:
It's probably better to say "for the current compilation unit"? There now
is LTO and whatnot.
Which raises the question, what happens for LTO? Do we stre
On 10/12/2015 05:07 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
- There are unsourced, unsubstantiated reports that on some platforms,
certain things might or might not work.
Back when this was written (circa 1996), this would have been considered
helpful information -- having a system routine clobber a register
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 04:09:34PM -0700, David Wohlferd wrote:
> I was hoping to modify the text to say that local register variables can
> "only" be used to call Extended asm. This would greatly simplify this
> section.
But it is not true: they can be used anywhere any variable can be used.
O
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 04:07:48PM -0700, David Wohlferd wrote:
> Index: extend.texi
> ===
> --- extend.texi (revision 228690)
> +++ extend.texi (working copy)
> @@ -8506,7 +8506,8 @@
> @cindex global register variables
>
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 03:06:19PM -0700, David Wohlferd wrote:
> But now it has annoyed someone who is willing to work on it.
And thanks for that :-)
> The current menu page has a couple of flaws:
>
> 1) It tries to condense the entire contents of the other 2 pages into a
> single paragraph ea
On 10/12/2015 04:06 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
Note that there is nothing actually "wrong" with the existing text. It
does not provide inaccurate information or miss key details. The
problem is that (from a compiler user's point of view) the text is hard
to follow. It reads as though people just
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 3:41 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> fOn Tue, 28 Apr 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
Stage 2 has been missing for 7 years now, Stages 3 and 4 seem to blur
together, the "regression only" rule is more like "non-invasive fixes
only" (likewise for the support branches).
