https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #32 from Antoni ---
Thanks; that looks really nice.
The function gcc_jit_context_add_top_level_asm might be missing a location
parameter.
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #31)
> Created attachment 48704 [details]
> v4 of the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48694|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-06-08
Ever confirmed|0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #29 from bouanto at zoho dot com ---
This API looks fine.
Another test would be to create a simple function, the equivalent of this:
#include
asm(
"add:\n"
"movq %rdi, %rax\n"
"add %rsi, %rax\n"
"ret\n");
extern in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #28 from David Malcolm ---
Generated HTML for docs (albeit without css) here:
https://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/gcc/2020-06-06/asm-v3.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48684|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #26 from David Malcolm ---
(there's also -fno-toplevel-reorder which makes me wonder if we do need to
preserve ordering with such constructs)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #25 from bouanto at zoho dot com ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #24)
> (In reply to bouanto from comment #23)
> > Created attachment 48685 [details]
> > Example of global assembly
>
> [...snip; thanks for the feedback
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #24 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to bouanto from comment #23)
> Created attachment 48685 [details]
> Example of global assembly
[...snip; thanks for the feedback]
> I attached an example of global assembly.
Thanks.
> I don
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #23 from bouanto at zoho dot com ---
Created attachment 48685
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48685&action=edit
Example of global assembly
See answers below.
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #22)
> Created
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #48677|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #21 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to bouanto from comment #20)
> Well, there's syntax for assembly at the top-level so the user can enter
> anything he wants, like in C.
> I can craft you an example if you need to, though.
I could
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #20 from bouanto at zoho dot com ---
Well, there's syntax for assembly at the top-level so the user can enter
anything he wants, like in C.
I can craft you an example if you need to, though.
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #19 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to bouanto from comment #18)
> (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #16)
> > Created attachment 48677 [details]
> This API looks good.
Thanks.
[...snip...]
> > "Basic" asm
> > ===
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #18 from bouanto at zoho dot com ---
See answers below.
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #16)
> Created attachment 48677 [details]
> Work-in-progress patch
>
> I had a go at implementing this; attached is a work-in-progress pr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #17 from David Malcolm ---
(also uploaded to
https://dmalcolm.fedorapeople.org/gcc/2020-06-04/0001-FIXME-WIP-on-extended-asm-support.patch
)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #16 from David Malcolm ---
Created attachment 48677
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=48677&action=edit
Work-in-progress patch
I had a go at implementing this; attached is a work-in-progress prototype.
It works fo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #15 from bouanto at zoho dot com ---
(In reply to David Malcolm from comment #14)
> Or even move the flags to API calls:
>
> extern gcc_jit_extended_asm *
> gcc_jit_block_add_extended_asm (gcc_jit_block *block,
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #14 from David Malcolm ---
Or even move the flags to API calls:
extern gcc_jit_extended_asm *
gcc_jit_block_add_extended_asm (gcc_jit_block *block,
const char *asm_template);
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #13 from David Malcolm ---
An alternative approach that reduces the number of params by splitting it into
successive calls:
extern gcc_jit_extended_asm *
gcc_jit_block_add_extended_asm (gcc_jit_block *block,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #12 from bouanto at zoho dot com ---
Since there would be many options, we could use a bitflags parameter instead of
having multiple parameters for the options.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #11 from programmerjake at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to programmerjake from comment #10)
> (In reply to bouanto from comment #9)
> > Does gcc provide a way to specify whether the stack should be aligned
> > properly, or is it done au
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
programmerjake at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||programmerjake at gmail
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #9 from bouanto at zoho dot com ---
Ok, so you would go without a function-like API.
I think you're missing a few parameters here, like the ASM dialect (intel vs
ATT) unless that would be the string ".intel_syntax;" at the start of th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #8 from David Malcolm ---
Reading the docs for extended asm, I think the API entrypoint would need to
look something like:
extern void
gcc_jit_block_add_extended_asm (gcc_jit_block *block,
int is_volat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to bouanto from comment #4)
> > So, an example like this:
> >
> > ```c
> > bool old;
> > __asm__ ("btsl %2,%1\n\t" // Turn on zero-based bit #Offset in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #6 from bouanto at zoho dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #5)
> (In reply to bouanto from comment #4)
> > So, an example like this:
> >
> > ```c
> > bool old;
> > __asm__ ("btsl %2,%1\n\t" // Turn on zero-based bit #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to bouanto from comment #4)
> So, an example like this:
>
> ```c
> bool old;
> __asm__ ("btsl %2,%1\n\t" // Turn on zero-based bit #Offset in Base.
> "sbb %0,%0" // Use the CF to calc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #4 from bouanto at zoho dot com ---
Oh, maybe it wasn't clear, but what I meant by constraints is: the output
operands, the input operands, and clobbers.
I guess we could make multiple parameters in the function for those.
For the thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Note to self: GCC's documentation for using asm from C:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Using-Assembly-Language-with-C.html
Thanks for the suggestions.
I'm not seeing how the proposed entrypoints in co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
bouanto at zoho dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bouanto at zoho dot com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #1 from David Malcolm ---
Feature requests like this are fine here (though I make no guarantees about
actually implementing them).
Any thoughts on what the API should look like?
33 matches
Mail list logo
