On Mar 11, 2015, at 8:53 PM, David Wohlferd d...@limegreensocks.com wrote:
...
I would agree that one should avoid it. I'd be wary of removing it
from GCC at this point since it might break working code.
It certainly would. It’s not all that common, but I have seen this done in
Resending due to bounced email.
On 3/11/2015 6:19 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, David Wohlferd d...@limegreensocks.com wrote:
The reason I believe the order can change is this comment from i386.h:
/* Order in which to allocate registers. Each register must be
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 02:02:37PM -0700, David Wohlferd wrote:
To wrap this up:
Like Ian said, the order of registers here apparently never changes. I read
more into that comment than I should have. For good luck, I experimented
with -fomit-frame-pointer, -ffixed-, etc, and nothing has
On 03/12/15 15:26, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 02:02:37PM -0700, David Wohlferd wrote:
To wrap this up:
Like Ian said, the order of registers here apparently never changes. I read
more into that comment than I should have. For good luck, I experimented
with
On 3/12/2015 7:24 AM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
On Mar 11, 2015, at 8:53 PM, David Wohlferd d...@limegreensocks.com wrote:
...
I would agree that one should avoid it. I'd be wary of removing it
from GCC at this point since it might break working code.
It certainly would. It’s not all
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 03:09:52PM -0700, David Wohlferd wrote:
Ahh. So perhaps as I suspected: this is more commonly used on non-i386
platforms. So clearly removing this is out of the question.
glibc uses it for PowerPC and s390 at least (I only grepped for 3,
quotes included -- there may
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, David Wohlferd d...@limegreensocks.com wrote:
The reason I believe the order can change is this comment from i386.h:
/* Order in which to allocate registers. Each register must be
listed once, even those in FIXED_REGISTERS. List frame pointer
late and
Why does gcc allow you to specify clobbers using numbers:
asm ( : : r (var) : 0); // i386: clobbers eax
How is this better than using register names?
This makes even less sense when you realize that (apparently) the
indices of registers aren't fixed. Which means there is no way to know
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 4:41 PM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
On Mar 11, 2015, at 7:19 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:58 PM, David Wohlferd d...@limegreensocks.com
wrote:
Why does gcc allow you to specify clobbers using numbers:
asm ( : : r (var)
On 3/11/2015 4:19 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:58 PM, David Wohlferd d...@limegreensocks.com wrote:
Why does gcc allow you to specify clobbers using numbers:
asm ( : : r (var) : 0); // i386: clobbers eax
How is this better than using register names?
This makes
On Mar 11, 2015, at 7:19 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:58 PM, David Wohlferd d...@limegreensocks.com
wrote:
Why does gcc allow you to specify clobbers using numbers:
asm ( : : r (var) : 0); // i386: clobbers eax
How is this better than
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:58 PM, David Wohlferd d...@limegreensocks.com wrote:
Why does gcc allow you to specify clobbers using numbers:
asm ( : : r (var) : 0); // i386: clobbers eax
How is this better than using register names?
This makes even less sense when you realize that
On 3/11/2015 4:41 PM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
On Mar 11, 2015, at 7:19 PM, Ian Lance Taylor i...@google.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:58 PM, David Wohlferd d...@limegreensocks.com wrote:
Why does gcc allow you to specify clobbers using numbers:
asm ( : : r (var) : 0); // i386:
13 matches
Mail list logo
