Hi,
On 20/06/16 19:01, Michael Matz wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2016, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>> On 20/06/16 18:36, Michael Matz wrote:
>>> I see zero gain by deprecating them and only churn. What would be the
>>> advantage again?
>>
>> Correctness.
>
> As said in the various threads about basic as
I’m working on importing gnulib inside gcc so that gcc can leverage it’s
functionality (and possible replace certain dependencies from libiberty).
I have imported the required gnulib modules in a directory inside the gcc
directory, along with the necessary configure.ac and Makefile.in require
Hi,
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > As said in the various threads about basic asms, all correctness
> > problems can be solved by making GCC more conservative in handling
> > them (or better said: not making it less conservative).
>
> Well, yes. That's exactly why we've agreed t
Hi,
On 21/06/16 13:08, Michael Matz wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jun 2016, Andrew Haley wrote:
>
>>> As said in the various threads about basic asms, all correctness
>>> problems can be solved by making GCC more conservative in handling
>>> them (or better said: not making it less conservative).
>>
>>
On 06/21/2016 10:33 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
Hi,
On 21/06/16 13:08, Michael Matz wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016, Andrew Haley wrote:
As said in the various threads about basic asms, all correctness
problems can be solved by making GCC more conservative in handling
them (or better said: not making
On 21/06/16 17:43, Jeff Law wrote:
> I think there's enough resistance to deprecating basic asms within a
> function that we should probably punt that idea.
>
> I do think we should look to stomp out our own uses of basic asms
> within functions just from a long term maintenance standpoint.
>
>
On 21/06/2016 17:53, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 21/06/16 17:43, Jeff Law wrote:
> > I think there's enough resistance to deprecating basic asms within a
> > function that we should probably punt that idea.
> >
> > I do think we should look to stomp out our own uses of basic asms
> > within functions
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 06:29:45PM +, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> I do not like the idea to deprecate the basic asm at all, I must admit,
> but I think if we added a warning, that just contains a positive information,
> like
> "warning: basic asm semantic has been changed to implicitly clobber mem
Snapshot gcc-5-20160621 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/5-20160621/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 5 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-5
