On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 02:02 -0800, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > This really doesn't make sense. So, we've not disabled the inline > assembler, so we will eventually produce an error, but we don't ask it to > validate the assembly about to be fed to itself (and errored on) while we > have the full context of the source code to go with it? How is this > reasonable behavior? > > Very fundamentally, LLVM's integrated assembler *is* going to assemble the > program.
No. It isn't.
Absolutely *nothing* is going to assemble this program.
We invoke the compiler with the '-S' option. It's going to *compile* the
program, and spit out a .s file for us.
Hence my comparison with a pre-processor. It makes as much sense for the
compiler in this case to be prodding and poking at the contents of
asm("") statements, as it does for a C preprocessor to barf because
"that's not valid C" when we use it for X keymap files.
--
dwmw2
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
