https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65436
--- Comment #6 from Adam Warner <adam at consulting dot net.nz> --- Sorry, I did not mean to send my previous comment. I updated the title and a hasty comment I was about to edit got added. It is unfair to dismiss my enhancement request as invalid. I correctly explained the current limitation (which happens to match the documentation!), proposed raising the limit from 30 to 80+ (marked as an enhancement request), and provided code which tests a limit up to 2x39=78 double-counted operands. I'm told it is too costly to raise this limit due to the way gcc handles asm operands internally. I think this is will-not-fix territory due to the current architecture of gcc. How does clang manage to compile the same code? I know of no public code where gcc's 15/30 asm operand limit has been a problem. The limitations I'm hitting in private code are naturally not your primary, secondary nor even tertiary concern. The limitation will only be important if the technique is used in a popular project where benchmark competition across compilers encourages gcc to remove the limitation.
