On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 10:08:16PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> I suspect that one could get quite a lot of milage out of parsing
> the assembly code and turning most of it into straight GIMPLE, rather
> than into ASM_EXPRs. A great many examples of VC++ inline asms that
> I've seen were comp
On Thursday 16 June 2005 00:45, Mike Stump wrote:
> If someone wanted to describe MS asms in detail, I'd be interested.
> Maybe the wiki would be a good place to home it.
I'm interested too, but wouldn't that be something _you_ could do
to show what we're actually talking about? :-) Putting the c
On Tuesday, June 14, 2005, at 06:29 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 09:26:11PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Jun 14, 2005, at 9:25 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
Any objections to adding Visual C++ style inline asms?
Mike, you're going to get more useful feedback if you ask a
On Tuesday, June 14, 2005, at 06:29 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
Doesn't that need support to parse assembly?
CW asm support needed this. I'd expect that MS asms would too, but I'm
not an expert, yet. That support is substantially less support than
gas.
On Tuesday, June 14, 2005, at 10:08 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
Didn't RTH objected the last time?
One has to do a less gross job of it than Red Hat did.
I did go back and re-reread all the useful content you, and others
gave. I did expect that all past concerns raised remain and that we'
On Wednesday, June 15, 2005, at 07:35 AM, Graham Stott wrote:
they had inline asms that spaned several pages of A4 with emmbeded
labels, control flow, and other cruff which was why it ended up being
so gross.
Also when combined with C++ Templates even the upfront parsing of the
asm gets hairy
--- Richard Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 09:26:11PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > On Jun 14, 2005, at 9:25 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> > >Any objections to adding Visual C++ style inline asms?
> >
> > Didn't RTH objected the last time?
>
> One has to do a less gr
Mike Stump wrote:
> Any objections to adding Visual C++ style inline asms?
Apart from what's been pointed out by RTH, you might
also want to read the messages from the previous
discussion on this subject initiated by Stan Shebs,
if you haven't already:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-05/msg00070
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 09:26:11PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2005, at 9:25 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> >Any objections to adding Visual C++ style inline asms?
>
> Didn't RTH objected the last time?
One has to do a less gross job of it than Red Hat did. I suppose
I could be prodded int
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
>Mike Stump
>Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 8:25 PM
>To: GCC Mailing List
>Subject: Visual C++ style inline asms
>Any objections to adding Visual C++ style inline asms?
This will greatly help us for those
Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Any objections to adding Visual C++ style inline asms?
Doesn't that need support to parse assembly? (= essentially
a builtin assembler). How else would the compiler
know what registers are clobbered and where to put input/output
variables?
All compilers i
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 09:26:11PM -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> On Jun 14, 2005, at 9:25 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
>
> >Any objections to adding Visual C++ style inline asms?
Mike, you're going to get more useful feedback if you ask a question
with some details in it. Not all of us use Microsoft
On Jun 14, 2005, at 9:25 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
Any objections to adding Visual C++ style inline asms?
Didn't RTH objected the last time?
-- Pinski
13 matches
Mail list logo
