https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93903
Frédéric Recoules changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||frederic.recoules@univ-gren
: documentation
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: inline-asm
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: frederic.recou...@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr
Target Milestone: ---
In the file gimplify.c in the function gimplify_asm_expr, it is said:
/* If
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93952
Frédéric Recoules changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |INVALID
Status|UNCONFIRM
Priority: P3
Component: inline-asm
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: frederic.recou...@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr
Target Milestone: ---
Consider the following code snippet:
int main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
int k = 0;
asm ("" : &qu
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: web
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: frederic.recou...@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr
Target Milestone: ---
The section 6.47.2.8 x86 Operand Modifiers of
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: inline-asm
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: frederic.recou...@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr
Target Milestone: ---
Consider the following code snippet:
int main (int argc,
ty: normal
Priority: P3
Component: inline-asm
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: frederic.recou...@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr
Target Milestone: ---
In https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html 6.47.2.8, it is said
that 'a' "Print an absolu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93952
--- Comment #1 from Frédéric Recoules
---
(In reply to Frédéric Recoules from comment #0)
> Now I wonder if the code where we replace the constraint by "rm" is valid
> because the returned value depends of the constraint the compiler have
> chos
Priority: P3
Component: inline-asm
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: frederic.recou...@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr
Target Milestone: ---
I am trying to understand the meaning of giving an array in an operand of an
inline assembly statement.
Please
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93944
--- Comment #4 from Frédéric Recoules
---
I do apologise for the inconvenience, but I am still really convinced that an
explicit note wouldn't hurt so much.
At least I've learned something today and I am thankful for that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93944
Frédéric Recoules changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|INVAL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93942
Frédéric Recoules changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
: inline-asm
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: frederic.recou...@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr
Target Milestone: ---
I would have said that I read somewhere that concurrent side effect in the
operands is an undefined behavior, but, I read the documentation
(Extended
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93942
--- Comment #2 from Frédéric Recoules
---
You are right, it is not strictly speaking wrong per-say but, I would say the
context is a little bit misleading.
Yet, I may be too x86 oriented... as a matter of personal curiosity, do you
known an arc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93903
Frédéric Recoules changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||frederic.recoules@univ-gren
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: web
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: frederic.recou...@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr
Target Milestone: ---
The following code snippet is wrong because the compiler can choose memory "m"
constraint for bot
16 matches
Mail list logo
