On 12/17/2015 11:30 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 15:13:07, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
What's your take on making -Wonly-top-basic-asm a default (either now or
v7)? Is making it a non-default a waste of time because no one will
ever see it? Or is making it a default too aggr
Hi,
On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 15:13:07, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > What's your take on making -Wonly-top-basic-asm a default (either now or
> > v7)? Is making it a non-default a waste of time because no one will
> > ever see it? Or is making it a default too aggressive? What about
> > adding it
Hi,
On 15. Dezember 2015 23:43, Joseph Myers wrote:
> I think the typical use of basic asm is: you want to manipulate I/O
> registers or other such state unknown to the compiler (not any registers
> the compiler might use itself), and you want to do it in a way that is
> maximally compatible with
Hi,
On 12/15/2015 13:52, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>
> On 12/14/2015 09:10 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > That, and adding a memory clobber degrades performance for a lot of
> > existing basic asm that does not expect the clobber, e.g. asm(""),
> > asm("#"), asm("nop"), ...
>
> I wonder about this
On 12/2/2015 3:34 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Hi,
Surely in code like that, you would make "x" volatile? Memory clobbers
are not a substitute for correct use of volatile accesses.
No,
It is as I wrote, a memory clobber is the only way to guarantee that
the asm statement is not move somewhere e
On 02/12/15 12:34, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Surely in code like that, you would make "x" volatile? Memory clobbers
>> are not a substitute for correct use of volatile accesses.
>
> No,
>
> It is as I wrote, a memory clobber is the only way to guarantee that
> the asm statement is not mo
Hi,
> Surely in code like that, you would make "x" volatile? Memory clobbers
> are not a substitute for correct use of volatile accesses.
No,
It is as I wrote, a memory clobber is the only way to guarantee that
the asm statement is not move somewhere else.
I changed the example to use volatile
On 02/12/15 08:51, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 1.12.2015, David Wohlferd wrote:
> On 12/1/2015 10:10 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>> But IMHO asm("bla":) isn't any better than asm("bla").
>>> I think _any_ asm with non-empty assembler string, that
>>> claims to clobber _nothing_ is highly suspicious,
On 1.12.2015, David Wohlferd wrote:
On 12/1/2015 10:10 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> > But IMHO asm("bla":) isn't any better than asm("bla").
> > I think _any_ asm with non-empty assembler string, that
> > claims to clobber _nothing_ is highly suspicious, and worth to be
> > warned about. I don't se
On 11/27/2015 11:02 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Hi,
I just found this in the docs:
The compiler copies the assembler instructions in a basic @code{asm}
verbatim to the assembly language output file, without
processing dialects or any of the @samp{%} operators that are available with
extended @co
Hi,
I just found this in the docs:
The compiler copies the assembler instructions in a basic @code{asm}
verbatim to the assembly language output file, without
processing dialects or any of the @samp{%} operators that are available with
extended @code{asm}. This results in minor differences betwe
Hi,
I just found this in the docs:
The compiler copies the assembler instructions in a basic @code{asm}
verbatim to the assembly language output file, without
processing dialects or any of the @samp{%} operators that are available with
extended @code{asm}. This results in minor differences betwe
12 matches
Mail list logo
