nts to describe what they are
testing.
So, I found a few tests that were *using* this feature. But they seem
to be checking for an ICE or page fault, rather than checking to see if
the generated code was avoiding the memory clobber.
dw
On 3/31/2014 1:41 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 03/31/2014 05:44 AM, dw wrote:
So, after looking over this discussion, I have updated the text. This
time no undefined terms, while still conveying all the points I had in mind:
The "memory" clobber tells the compiler that the ass
stop that, you need
processor-specific fence instructions.
Objections?
dw
Looks great to me. Just noticed one small nit: in the extended asm
section, "=irm" isn't valid, since you can't assign to an immediate.
Doh! I probably copied this from the Input section. Good catch.
Also, in the section about clobbers:
It causes the compiler to flush all registers to
/Using-Assembly-Language-with-C.html)
if you want to look at how it turned out.
Unless you have something else, I'm going to start composing the email
for gcc-patches.
Thanks for the help.
dw
On 3/25/2014 4:20 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
dw writes:
asm ("" : "=m" (*x), "=r" (y));
you have to assume that the address in %0 might use the same register as %1
Ok, now I'm getting there. It helps that I've compiled some examples
and can se
g the '&' constraint with the register
constraint prevents this overlap and resolves the inconsistency."
That's as clear as I can come up with. Better?
dw
tricky, but the existing documentation needs
to be improved.
dw has done a fairly thorough reworking of
the documentation. I've helped a bit.
Section 6.41 of the GCC manual has been rewritten. It has become:
6.41 How to Use Inline Assembly Language in C Code
6.41.1 Basic Asm - Assembler Instructi
On 3/3/2014 3:36 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
dw writes:
On 2/27/2014 11:32 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
dw writes:
On 2/27/2014 4:11 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Andrew Haley writes:
Over the years there has been a great deal of traffic on these lists
caused by misunderstandings of
On 2/27/2014 8:12 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
dw writes:
What would you say to something like this:
"Since GCC does not parse the asm, it has no visibility of any static
variables or functions it references. This may result in those
symbols getting discarded by GCC as unused. To avoid
On 2/27/2014 9:35 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
Andrew Haley writes:
Over the years there has been a great deal of traffic on these lists
caused by misunderstandings of GCC's inline assembler. That's partly
because it's inherently tricky, but the existing documentation needs
to b
tation needs
to be improved.
dw has done a fairly thorough reworking of
the documentation. I've helped a bit.
Section 6.41 of the GCC manual has been rewritten. It has become:
6.41 How to Use Inline Assembly Language in C Code
6.41.1 Basic Asm - Assembler Instructions with No Operands
to be improved.
dw has done a fairly thorough reworking of
the documentation. I've helped a bit.
Section 6.41 of the GCC manual has been rewritten. It has become:
6.41 How to Use Inline Assembly Language in C Code
6.41.1 Basic Asm - Assembler Instructions with No Operands
6.41.2 Exte
/gcc/Using-Assembly-Language-with-C.html)
and I haven't had a problem generating output.
dw
I am attempting to submit a patch for the gcc documentation (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2013-04/msg00193.html). I am told that I
need to submit one of these two forms. Please send me copies so I can
select one and submit it.
dw
15 matches
Mail list logo
