On Mon, 1 May 2023 18:18:38 -0400, Phil Smith III <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doh, I of course meant -qasm not -dasm. > > > >From: Phil Smith III <[email protected]> >Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 5:02 PM >To: [email protected]; IBM Mainframe Assembler List >([email protected]) <[email protected]> >Subject: XLC inline assembler question > > > >(Cross-posted to IBM-MAIN and the assembler list) > >When compiling C programs with XLC, you need to specify the -dasm flag to have >inline assembler code recognized as such. I can see PoE arguments for >requiring that option; what isn't clear is whether there's any downside to it >beyond the unlikely case that you decide to have a function of your own named >asm or __asm or __asm__. Is there? We'd rather just use it all the time, >rather than trying to keep track of which modules have inline assembler and >which don't, but not if it's going to cost significant performance at compile >time or something. > > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN (posting on behalf of a colleague) hi Phil, Generally there is no downside for specifying -qasm all the time. Your analysis (and Paul’s) is correct. There are a few side issues (listings changing to show ASM is in effect, etc.), but just turning that option on for everything should work as long as you don’t mind those changes occurring. hope this helps. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
