On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 1:49 AM, Tim Northover <[email protected]> wrote: > On 24 April 2014 00:35, Jim Grosbach <[email protected]> wrote: >> I share Eric’s concern here. As I recall, the spec from ARM was very clear >> on this point, requiring a modifier to specify anything other than a 64-bit >> GPR. Matching the behavior of GCC is not a sufficient reason to change that >> unless the specification changed as well. > > Unfortunately, that spec doesn't seem to have made it to GCC, either > in code or in documentation form.
Yeah, no kidding. > > Personally, I don't think GPR64 has any more claim to being general > purpose than GPR32. The options I'd favour are to *require* an operand > modifier in all cases (I'm always in favour of explicit assembly), or > what GCC actually does by inferring the size. The first is clearly not > viable though. > Well, it is a 64-bit architecture by default. The major reason I disagree with the change is that the code had in the past and continues to find bugs in inline assembly. As far as the "compatible with gcc" argument: you can make a similar change there to make it more strict :p -eric _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
