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 ma
On 3/12/2015 7:24 AM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
On Mar 11, 2015, at 8:53 PM, David Wohlferd 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 se
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 -fomit-frame-point
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 ha
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 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 tho
> On Mar 11, 2015, at 8:53 PM, David Wohlferd 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
>> production code.
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 5:51 PM, David Wohlferd 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 fixed registers l
On 3/11/2015 4:41 PM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
On Mar 11, 2015, at 7:19 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:58 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
Why does gcc allow you to specify clobbers using numbers:
asm ("" : : "r" (var) : "0"); // i386: clobbers eax
How is this better
On 3/11/2015 4:19 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:58 PM, David Wohlferd 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 whe
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 4:41 PM, wrote:
>
>> On Mar 11, 2015, at 7:19 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:58 PM, David Wohlferd
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why does gcc allow you to specify clobbers using numbers:
>>>
>>> asm ("" : : "r" (var) : "0"); // i386: clobbers eax
>>>
> On Mar 11, 2015, at 7:19 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:58 PM, David Wohlferd
> 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?
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:58 PM, David Wohlferd 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 (apparently) the in
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 kn
13 matches
Mail list logo
