what they are
testing.
So, I found a few tests that were *using* this feature. But they seem
to be checking for an ICE or page fault, rather than checking to see if
the generated code was avoiding the memory clobber.
dw
://www.LimeGreenSocks/gcc/extend08.zip
Unless I hear otherwise, I will post the updated patch (with a corrected
changelog) on this thread ~24 hours from this post.
It can then be committed as per usual.
dw
compile options. While this option only applies to
i386 currently, this text leaves the option open should some other
platform make use of it in the future.
Unless someone says otherwise, I'm calling this question resolved.
dw
On 4/29/2014 5:48 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 29/04/14 11:47, dw wrote:
While I'm waiting to hear back from Gerald about my responses to his
other corrections, I have answered one question:
How does the user know what is dialect #0? Same for the others?
When I originally wrote
more, I feel confident saying more people will view the html text
than the texi, so a little extra effort to make sure the html is correct
is merited.
Thanks for your feedback,
dw
if
anything has actually changed, so: assuming this is still
required, are copyright assignment papers in place with the FSF
for these changes? I can't find any dw (or maybe too many) in
the canonical copyright.list just refreshed so I can't tell.
It would be a bummer to just find out about this now
by this time tomorrow, I'll re-post the
final patch.
Thanks,
dw
On 4/8/2014 10:29 PM, dw wrote:
On 4/8/2014 4:17 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
On Fri, 4 Apr 2014, dw wrote:
Problem description:
The existing documentation does an inadequate job of describing gcc's
implementation of the asm keyword
On 3/31/2014 1:41 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 03/31/2014 05:44 AM, dw wrote:
So, after looking over this discussion, I have updated the text. This
time no undefined terms, while still conveying all the points I had in mind:
The memory clobber tells the compiler that the assembly code performs
that, you need
processor-specific fence instructions.
Objections?
dw
Looks great to me. Just noticed one small nit: in the extended asm
section, =irm isn't valid, since you can't assign to an immediate.
Doh! I probably copied this from the Input section. Good catch.
Also, in the section about clobbers:
It causes the compiler to flush all registers to
On 3/25/2014 4:20 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
dw limegreenso...@yahoo.com writes:
asm ( : =m (*x), =r (y));
you have to assume that the address in %0 might use the same register as %1
Ok, now I'm getting there. It helps that I've compiled some examples
and can see what is happening
-Language-with-C.html)
if you want to look at how it turned out.
Unless you have something else, I'm going to start composing the email
for gcc-patches.
Thanks for the help.
dw
as clear as I can come up with. Better?
dw
, but the existing documentation needs
to be improved.
dw limegreenso...@yahoo.com has done a fairly thorough reworking of
the documentation. I've helped a bit.
Section 6.41 of the GCC manual has been rewritten. It has become:
6.41 How to Use Inline Assembly Language in C Code
6.41.1 Basic Asm - Assembler
On 3/3/2014 3:36 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
dw limegreenso...@yahoo.com writes:
On 2/27/2014 11:32 PM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
dw limegreenso...@yahoo.com writes:
On 2/27/2014 4:11 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com writes:
Over the years there has been a great
On 2/27/2014 8:12 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
dwlimegreenso...@yahoo.com writes:
What would you say to something like this:
Since GCC does not parse the asm, it has no visibility of any static
variables or functions it references. This may result in those
symbols getting discarded by GCC as
to be improved.
dw limegreenso...@yahoo.com has done a fairly thorough reworking of
the documentation. I've helped a bit.
Section 6.41 of the GCC manual has been rewritten. It has become:
6.41 How to Use Inline Assembly Language in C Code
6.41.1 Basic Asm - Assembler Instructions with No Operands
to be improved.
dw limegreenso...@yahoo.com has done a fairly thorough reworking of
the documentation. I've helped a bit.
It would be nice if you could include some discussion of the LTO
reference problems.
Something like:
It is not legal to reference a static variable or function symbol from
to be improved.
dw limegreenso...@yahoo.com has done a fairly thorough reworking of
the documentation. I've helped a bit.
Section 6.41 of the GCC manual has been rewritten. It has become:
6.41 How to Use Inline Assembly Language in C Code
6.41.1 Basic Asm - Assembler Instructions with No Operands
/gcc/Using-Assembly-Language-with-C.html)
and I haven't had a problem generating output.
dw
I am attempting to submit a patch for the gcc documentation (see
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2013-04/msg00193.html). I am told that I
need to submit one of these two forms. Please send me copies so I can
select one and submit it.
dw
21 matches
Mail list logo
