On 20.12.2015 23:53, David Wohlferd wrote:
> On 12/20/2015 10:26 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> On 19.12.2015 19:54, David Wohlferd wrote:
>> mep: mep_interrupt_saved_reg looks for ASM_INPUT in the body, and
>> saves different registers if found.
> I'm trying to follow this code. A real
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 02:53:15PM -0800, David Wohlferd wrote:
> >You do not have to escape the { and } for extended asm, on this target,
> >using %{ produces even an error.
>
> I believe the only the only target that needs to escape {} is i386,
> since it's the only one that supports dialects (
On 12/20/2015 10:26 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 19.12.2015 19:54, David Wohlferd wrote:
mep: mep_interrupt_saved_reg looks for ASM_INPUT in the body, and
saves different registers if found.
I'm trying to follow this code. A real challenge since I know nothing
about mep. But what I see is:
-
Hi,
On 19.12.2015 19:54, David Wohlferd wrote:
>
mep: mep_interrupt_saved_reg looks for ASM_INPUT in the body, and
saves different registers if found.
>>> I'm trying to follow this code. A real challenge since I know nothing
>>> about mep. But what I see is:
>>>
>>> - This routine only
On 12/18/2015 11:55 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 18.12.2015 10:27, David Wohlferd wrote:
On 12/17/2015 11:30 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Adding this warning to -Wall is too quickly and will bring the ia64,
tilegx and mep ports into trouble.
It doesn't look to me like adding the warnings will af
On 18.12.2015 10:27, David Wohlferd wrote:
> 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
On 12/17/2015 6:03 AM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 12/17/2015 03:39 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 17/12/15 01:41, David Wohlferd wrote:
On the contrary, I would be surprised to learn that there are ANY
compilers (other than clang) that support gcc's extended asm format.
Prepare to be surprised: Sun Studi
On 12/17/2015 02:41 AM, David Wohlferd wrote:
So how about:
- Update the basic asm docs to describe basic asm's current (and
historical) semantics (ie clobber nothing).
- Emphasize how that might be different from users' expectations or the
behavior of other compilers.
- Warn that this could ch
On 12/17/2015 03:39 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 17/12/15 01:41, David Wohlferd wrote:
On the contrary, I would be surprised to learn that there are ANY
compilers (other than clang) that support gcc's extended asm format.
Prepare to be surprised: Sun Studio compilers seem to support it
just fine
On 17/12/15 11:39, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 17/12/15 01:41, David Wohlferd wrote:
>> On the contrary, I would be surprised to learn that there are ANY
>> compilers (other than clang) that support gcc's extended asm format.
>
> Prepare to be surprised: Sun Studio compilers seem to support it
> j
On 17/12/15 01:41, David Wohlferd wrote:
> On the contrary, I would be surprised to learn that there are ANY
> compilers (other than clang) that support gcc's extended asm format.
Prepare to be surprised: Sun Studio compilers seem to support it
just fine.
Andrew.
On 12/15/2015 2:43 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015, David Wohlferd wrote:
Unlike top level, using basic asm within a function is deprecated. No new code
should use this feature, but should use extended asm instead. Existing code
should begin replacing such usage. Instances of affec
On 12/15/2015 5:01 PM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
On Dec 15, 2015, at 5:22 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
On 12/14/2015 1:53 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
This just seems like another argument for deprecating basic asm and pushing
people to extended.
Yes. I am not arguing against deprecation. We sho
On 12/15/2015 1:13 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
Sadly, I'm putting most of this discussion into my gcc-7 queue anyway.
Fair enough. If "clobbers" is what we're going to do, that sounds more
like a phase 1 thing.
That said, some people who have this problem may prefer to fix it sooner
rather than la
On 12/15/2015 12:42 PM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
In the codebase for the product I work on, I see about 200 of them. Many of those are the likes of
asm("sync") for MIPS, which definitely wants to be treated as if it were asm ("sync" : :
: "memory").
That's right, I meant to ask you about
> On Dec 15, 2015, at 5:22 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
>
> On 12/14/2015 1:53 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> > This just seems like another argument for deprecating basic asm and
>> > pushing people to extended.
>> Yes. I am not arguing against deprecation. We should do that.
>
> You know, there a
On Tue, 15 Dec 2015, David Wohlferd wrote:
> Unlike top level, using basic asm within a function is deprecated. No new code
> should use this feature, but should use extended asm instead. Existing code
> should begin replacing such usage. Instances of affected code can be found
> using -Wonly-top
On 12/14/2015 1:53 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> This just seems like another argument for deprecating basic asm and
pushing people to extended.
Yes. I am not arguing against deprecation. We should do that.
You know, there are several people who seem to generally support this
direction. Not en
On 12/15/2015 01:42 PM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
On Dec 15, 2015, at 7:52 AM, 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("
> On Dec 15, 2015, at 7:52 AM, 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
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. People keep bringing up "a lot of existing basic
asm" in gener
On 13/12/15 06:15, David Wohlferd wrote:
>
> However breakage and performance issues can still result solely from
> adding memory clobbers.
Breakage? Really?
> And as I mentioned, "just memory clobber" may
> not be the behavior people expect. And if we aren't solving that, might
> there be
On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 10:59:11PM -0800, David Wohlferd wrote:
> Is there a decision maker still teetering on the edge of making a call
> here?
I think people are waiting for consensus, and we won't get consensus
until there is a good solution, something that gives workable semantics
(whatever t
Is there a decision maker still teetering on the edge of making a call
here? Or have they all moved on and we are just talking among
ourselves? I keep worrying that if I don't reply, someone will swoop
in, read the last message in the thread, and charge off to make a
changes based on that. S
Hi,
On 12.12.2015 10:51, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 11/12/15 22:18, David Wohlferd wrote:
>
>> And here are the three solutions that have been proposed:
>>
>> Solution 1:
>> Just document the current behavior of basic asm.
>>
>> People who have written incorrect code can be pointed at the text and
>
On 12/12/2015 1:51 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Solution 2:
Change the docs to say that basic asm clobbers everything (memory, all
registers, etc) or perhaps just memory (some debate here), but that due
to bugs that will eventually be addressed, it doesn't currently work
this way.
You've missed the m
> On Dec 12, 2015, at 4:51 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
> ...
> You've missed the most practical solution, which meets most common
> usage: clobber memory, but not registers. That allows most of the
> effects that people intuitively want and expect, but avoids the
> breakage of register clobbers.
On 11/12/15 22:18, David Wohlferd wrote:
> And here are the three solutions that have been proposed:
>
> Solution 1:
> Just document the current behavior of basic asm.
>
> People who have written incorrect code can be pointed at the text and
> told to fix their code. People whose code is damag
On 12/1/2015 7:41 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> My strong preference is still to document the desired semantics for
GCC and treat anything that does not adhere to those semantics as a bug.
Despite nearly 100 posts over 2 threads, we don't seem to be reaching
either a consensus or a conclusion. How do
Am 03.12.2015 um 16:24 schrieb paul_kon...@dell.com:
> On the other hand, asm volatile ("foo":::) has a different meaning.
> That specifically says that "foo" doesn't clobber anything.
Well, not exactly, see the md_asm_adjust target callback.
On i386, rs6000, visium, cris and mn10300 targets
> On Dec 3, 2015, at 12:29 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>
>> ...
>> If the goal is to order things wrt x, why wouldn't you just reference x?
>>
>> x = 1;
>> asm volatile("nop":"+m"(x));
>> x = 0;
>>
>
> Exactly, that is what I mean. Either the asm can use memory clobber
> or it can use ou
On 03.12.2015 00:27 David Wohlferd wrote:
> 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
On 12/1/2015 7:56 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 08:41:22PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
Isn't "asm" conditionally supported for ISO C++? In which case it's not
mandatory and semantics are implementation defined.
Yes.
My strong preference is still to document the desired sem
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 08:41:22PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> Isn't "asm" conditionally supported for ISO C++? In which case it's not
> mandatory and semantics are implementation defined.
Yes.
> My strong preference is still to document the desired semantics for GCC
> and treat anything that doe
On 12/01/2015 03:29 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
On 11/30/2015 4:01 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> There is a way for people to be clear about what they want to clobber,
>> and that's to use extended asm. The way to clear up the ambiguity
is to
>> start deprecating basic asm, not to add to the confu
On 12/01/2015 04:25 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Tue, 1 Dec 2015, David Wohlferd wrote:
Saying it's dead in the docs is the first step to making it dead in the code.
This patch just implements an optional warning (unless #3,4 crank it up to a
default warning), but the intent is that eventually (v
On Tue, 1 Dec 2015, David Wohlferd wrote:
> Saying it's dead in the docs is the first step to making it dead in the code.
> This patch just implements an optional warning (unless #3,4 crank it up to a
> default warning), but the intent is that eventually (v7? v8?) this turns into
> a fatal error.
On 11/30/2015 4:01 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> There is a way for people to be clear about what they want to clobber,
>> and that's to use extended asm. The way to clear up the ambiguity
is to
>> start deprecating basic asm, not to add to the confusion by changing
its
>> behavior after all thes
On 12/1/2015 10:10 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> And a test case is missing too.
>
> I think this warning concentrates now only on basic asm.
> And people will be probably fix it in the most easy way,
> by just adding a colon.
Probably true. At least I hope it's that easy for most people.
> But I
On 12/1/2015 8:08 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> Formatting nit: the '== NULL_TREE)' should line up with the start of
> 'lookup_attribute'.
> Same here.
Ok. Other than that, how do we proceed here?
When pursuing a course to "deprecate and later completely remove basic
asm within functions," I
On 01/12/2015 17:08, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 28/11/15 04:05, David Wohlferd wrote:
>> On 11/24/2015 6:50 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
>>> I have solved the problem with my previous patch. Here's the update
>>> (feedback welcome): http://www.LimeGreenSocks.com/gcc/24414g.zip
>>>
>>> Based on my
On 28/11/15 04:05, David Wohlferd wrote:
> On 11/24/2015 6:50 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
>> I have solved the problem with my previous patch. Here's the update
>> (feedback welcome): http://www.LimeGreenSocks.com/gcc/24414g.zip
>>
>> Based on my understanding from the previous thread, this patch now
> On Nov 29, 2015, at 6:53 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/28/2015 10:30 AM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
>>> On Nov 28, 2015, at 2:02 AM, Bernd Edlinger
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>> Well, I start to think that Jeff is right, and we should treat a asm ("")
>>> as if it
>>> were asm vo
On 11/29/2015 11:53 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
>
> Trying to guess what people might have been expecting is a losing game.
We have to do it all the time.
> There is a way for people to be clear about what they want to clobber,
> and that's to use extended asm. The way to clear up the ambiguit
On 11/28/2015 10:30 AM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
On Nov 28, 2015, at 2:02 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
...
Well, I start to think that Jeff is right, and we should treat a asm ("") as if
it
were asm volatile ("" ::: ) but if the asm ("nonempty with optional %") we
should
treat it as asm vol
Hi,
> Well, I start to think that Jeff is right, and we should treat a asm ("") as
> if it
> were asm volatile ("" ::: )
> but if the asm ("nonempty with optional %") we should
> treat it as asm volatile ("nonempty with optional %%" ::: "memory").
> Our docs should say that explicitly, and the i
> On Nov 28, 2015, at 2:02 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>
> ...
> Well, I start to think that Jeff is right, and we should treat a asm ("") as
> if it
> were asm volatile ("" ::: ) but if the asm ("nonempty with optional %") we
> should
> treat it as asm volatile ("nonempty with optional %%" :::
On 11/24/2015 6:50 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
I have solved the problem with my previous patch. Here's the update
(feedback welcome): http://www.LimeGreenSocks.com/gcc/24414g.zip
Based on my understanding from the previous thread, this patch now
does what it needs to do (code-wise) to resolve t
48 matches
Mail list logo
