On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 7:59 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>> Patch committed to upstream libtool, thanks for your understanding.
>
> Great!
>
> How can I have the patch backported to GCC trunk and 5-branch libtool,
> and then rebuild configu
On 25/11/15 15:47, Michael Matz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2015, Richard Biener wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:01 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>>> There's a proposal working through the C++ committee to define the order of
>>> evaluation of subexpressions that previously had unspecified
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Richard Henderson wrote:
> I'd be perfectly happy to deprecate and later completely remove basic asm
> within functions.
We've explictly promised (directed to kernel people IIRC) that
the empty basic asm; 'asm ("")', has forward-compatible
outlining magic, so people would not
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 05:30:48AM -0500, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > I'd be perfectly happy to deprecate and later completely remove basic asm
> > within functions.
>
> We've explictly promised (directed to kernel people IIRC) that
> the empty bas
Hi,
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015, David Brown wrote:
> That is all true - but if you have to pick an order that makes sense to
> users, especially of functions that are not varargs (i.e., most
> functions), then left-to-right is the only logical, natural order - at
> least for those of use who use left
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 05:30:48AM -0500, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > > I'd be perfectly happy to deprecate and later completely remove basic asm
> > > within functions.
> >
> > We've explictly prom
On 11/26/2015 8:26 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 05:30:48AM -0500, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015, Richard Henderson wrote:
I'd be perfectly happy to deprecate and later completely remove basic asm
within fun
On Thu, 26 Nov 2015, David Wohlferd wrote:
> On 11/26/2015 8:26 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 Nov 2015, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 05:30:48AM -0500, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > > > @item noinline
...
> > > > asm ("");
...
> > I know, the point is that w
>> To be clear, wouldn't asm("":) have the same effect?
>
> That does not matter. It'd require source-code changes to
> users' code.
My suggestion was to allow the exception to the "basic asm in a
function" warning, but change the docs to show using the new syntax.
This does not require any u
