In http://reviews.llvm.org/D6870#109832, @rnk wrote:
> In http://reviews.llvm.org/D6870#109616, @steven_wu wrote: > > > - Update patch that AsmLabels are now disabled with -fno-gnu-inline-asm. > > This also means functions with asm-labels will also be reported as an error > > with -fno-gnu-inline-asm. > > > I wasn't suggesting that we reject function asm labels, I was suggesting that > we reject variables marked as living in specific registers. Consider > something like: > > register void *sp asm("esp"); > int main () { > printf("sp: %p\n", sp); > } > > This code compiles down to read the esp register in main. > > I think using asm labels to rename something is not inherently architecture > specific and could be accepted even in the presence of -fno-inline-asm. What > do you think? I agree that function asm labels are a separate thing and should not be affected by -fno-gnu-inline-asm. It would still be good to disallow register asm with that flag, though. I like the suggestion to call this option "-fno-gnu-inline-asm", but if we do that, I don't see a need to keep "-fno-inline-asm". If someone really wants to prevent both GNU and Microsoft-style inline asm, they can just specify -fno-gnu-inline-asm and -fno-asm-blocks. http://reviews.llvm.org/D6870 EMAIL PREFERENCES http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
