efriedma-quic wrote: > OK, so your position is that this patch should add a section in > LanguageExtensions that describes the assumptions that we make regarding the > effects of inline assembly, do I understand that correctly?
Yes. Ideally, we'd also have more complete documentation about constraints etc., but that shouldn't block this patch. > But I think none of us want to optimize more aggressively than gcc. Right. > But do you see a reason not to consider a "=m" output constraint as a pure > output? Gcc optimization will clearly assume that such an output operand is > only written (and unconditionally overwrites the entire value): > https://godbolt.org/z/MvvhjPM44 I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up breaking someone's code... but maybe if gcc is already aggressive here, not very much code. https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/110510 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
