> On Nov 24, 2015, at 12:49 PM, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 8:58 AM, <paul_kon...@dell.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm really concerned with loosening the meaning of basic asm. I
>> wish I could find the documentation that says, or implies, that it
>> is a memory clobber. And/or that it is implicitly volatile.
>
> The volatile one is right there in the current docs.
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Basic-Asm.html#Basic-Asm
>
> "All basic asm blocks are implicitly volatile."
Ok, that's what I remembered. I reported finding that this was not implemented
correctly, some number of versions ago.
paul
