Re: Using the asm suffix

2015-09-09 Thread Jeff Law
On 09/07/2015 06:56 PM, David Wohlferd wrote: In order for the doc maintainers to approve this patch, I need to have someone sign off on the technical accuracy. Now that I have included the points we have discussed (attached), hopefully we are there. Original text:

Re: Using the asm suffix

2015-09-07 Thread David Wohlferd
In order for the doc maintainers to approve this patch, I need to have someone sign off on the technical accuracy. Now that I have included the points we have discussed (attached), hopefully we are there. Original text: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Asm-Labels.html Proposed text:

Re: Using the asm suffix

2015-08-21 Thread Segher Boessenkool
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:02:14PM -0700, David Wohlferd wrote: how about replacing the existing text (It does not make sense to use this feature with a non-static local variable since such variables do not have assembler names.) with Do not use this feature with a non-static local variable.

Re: Using the asm suffix

2015-08-20 Thread Andreas Schwab
David Wohlferd d...@limegreensocks.com writes: gcc does not support using this feature with a non-static local variable since typically such variables do not have assembler names. The technical term is linkage, btw. An identifier with no linkage has no visible name in the assembler output.

Re: Using the asm suffix

2015-08-20 Thread David Wohlferd
[snip] how about replacing the existing text (It does not make sense to use this feature with a non-static local variable since such variables do not have assembler names.) with Do not use this feature with a non-static local variable. or maybe It is not supported to use this feature with a

Re: Using the asm suffix

2015-08-19 Thread Segher Boessenkool
On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 02:08:16PM -0700, David Wohlferd wrote: My intent here is to break this clearly into two @subsubheadings: 'Assembler names for data' and 'Assembler names for functions'. Since data is the first section, I removed the word 'function' here. I missed that, sorry. Or, did

Re: Using the asm suffix

2015-08-18 Thread Segher Boessenkool
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 09:55:48PM -0700, David Wohlferd wrote: On systems where an underscore is normally prepended to the name of a C -function or variable, this feature allows you to define names for the +variable, this feature allows you to define names for the linker that do not start

Re: Using the asm suffix

2015-08-17 Thread Segher Boessenkool
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 06:33:40PM -0700, David Wohlferd wrote: On systems where an underscore is normally prepended to the name of a C -function or variable, this feature allows you to define names for the +variable, this feature allows you to define names for the linker that do not start

Re: Using the asm suffix

2015-08-17 Thread Segher Boessenkool
On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 06:33:40PM -0700, David Wohlferd wrote: As a followup to my update to the inline asm docs, I'm cleaning up the docs for 'Asm Labels.' The changes I want to make are pretty straight-forward (attached; comments welcome). But then I came across this line of code (from

Re: Using the asm suffix

2015-08-17 Thread David Wohlferd
There isn't any description of using asm like this in the current Asm Labels docs. And there shouldn't be. It's a hack. Ok, good. After experimenting with this, I wasn't looking forward to trying to describe what did and didn't work. dw

Re: Using the asm suffix

2015-08-17 Thread David Wohlferd
Thank you for the review and comments. On 8/17/2015 3:41 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 06:33:40PM -0700, David Wohlferd wrote: On systems where an underscore is normally prepended to the name of a C -function or variable, this feature allows you to define names for

Using the asm suffix

2015-08-16 Thread David Wohlferd
As a followup to my update to the inline asm docs, I'm cleaning up the docs for 'Asm Labels.' The changes I want to make are pretty straight-forward (attached; comments welcome). But then I came across this line of code (from