On 11/11/2015 02:19 AM, David Wohlferd wrote:
On 11/9/2015 1:52 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/07/2015 12:50 AM, David Wohlferd wrote:
- Starting with 'modifiers', "=+&" and (reluctantly) "%" seem reasonable
for inline asm. But both "#*" seem sketchy.
Right. =+& are no-brainer yes, as are the co
On 11/9/2015 2:03 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 09/11/15 09:57, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
On 07/11/15 09:23, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 11:50:40PM -0800, David Wohlferd wrote:
The same goes for some constraints and almost all output modifiers.
Are you suggesting more d
On 11/9/2015 1:52 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/07/2015 12:50 AM, David Wohlferd wrote:
- Starting with 'modifiers', "=+&" and (reluctantly) "%" seem reasonable
for inline asm. But both "#*" seem sketchy.
Right. =+& are no-brainer yes, as are the constants 0-9. % is
probably OK as well.
#* ar
On 11/07/2015 12:50 AM, David Wohlferd wrote:
- Starting with 'modifiers', "=+&" and (reluctantly) "%" seem reasonable
for inline asm. But both "#*" seem sketchy.
Right. =+& are no-brainer yes, as are the constants 0-9. % is probably
OK as well.
#* are similar to !? in that they are inhere
On 09/11/15 09:57, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 07/11/15 09:23, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 11:50:40PM -0800, David Wohlferd wrote:
The same goes for some constraints and almost all output modifiers.
>>>
>>> Are you suggesting more doc changes? Looking thru the pages
On 07/11/15 09:23, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 11:50:40PM -0800, David Wohlferd wrote:
>>> The same goes for some constraints and almost all output modifiers.
>>
>> Are you suggesting more doc changes? Looking thru the pages you reference:
>>
>> - Starting with 'modifiers',
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 11:50:40PM -0800, David Wohlferd wrote:
> >The same goes for some constraints and almost all output modifiers.
>
> Are you suggesting more doc changes? Looking thru the pages you reference:
>
> - Starting with 'modifiers', "=+&" and (reluctantly) "%" seem reasonable
> fo
On 11/6/2015 4:46 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 03:29:43PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
It's never easy to predict whether or not something like this will be
contentious. Worst case is you post, it's contentious, we iterate a bit
and reach some kind of resolution (ok, worst ca
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 03:29:43PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> It's never easy to predict whether or not something like this will be
> contentious. Worst case is you post, it's contentious, we iterate a bit
> and reach some kind of resolution (ok, worst case is no resolution is
> reached, but that
On 11/02/2015 11:30 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
I think the fundamental problem here is we ought not be exposing those
modifiers to the user. They're inherently tied to the details of the
register allocation and reloading passes.
This is what I'm thinking as well.
I agree.
The only reason I d
On 11/2/2015 3:43 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 11/02/2015 04:06 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/30/2015 09:09 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
I have updated the non-md text with (most of) the changes I think it
needs (attached). These changes are pleasantly minor, mostly just
adding some example text a
On 11/02/2015 04:06 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/30/2015 09:09 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
I have updated the non-md text with (most of) the changes I think it
needs (attached). These changes are pleasantly minor, mostly just
adding some example text and a bit of formatting.
However. Trying to ac
On 10/30/2015 09:09 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
I have updated the non-md text with (most of) the changes I think it
needs (attached). These changes are pleasantly minor, mostly just
adding some example text and a bit of formatting.
However. Trying to actually use the information on this page i
On 10/29/2015 1:47 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 10/27/2015 02:05 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/25/2015 09:41 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
Does gcc's inline asm support multi-alternative constraints? Or are
they only supported for md?
dw
PS If it *is* supported, then the docs need some work.
I t
On 10/27/2015 02:05 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/25/2015 09:41 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
>> Does gcc's inline asm support multi-alternative constraints? Or are
>> they only supported for md?
>>
>> The fact that it is doc'ed with the other constraints
>> (https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Constrain
On 10/25/2015 09:41 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
Does gcc's inline asm support multi-alternative constraints? Or are
they only supported for md?
The fact that it is doc'ed with the other constraints
(https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Constraints.html) says it works for
inline. But https://gcc.gn
Does gcc's inline asm support multi-alternative constraints? Or are
they only supported for md?
The fact that it is doc'ed with the other constraints
(https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Constraints.html) says it works for
inline. But https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10396#c17 say
17 matches
Mail list logo
