https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=87291
--- Comment #25 from bouanto at zoho dot com --- (In reply to David Malcolm from comment #24) > (In reply to bouanto from comment #23) > > Created attachment 48685 [details] > > Example of global assembly > > [...snip....; thanks for the feedback] > > > I attached an example of global assembly. > > Thanks. > > > I don't understand the ordering issue. > > I also don't understand how gcc_jit_context_new_function is used here. > > I see that you have a balanced .pushsection/.popsection pair in your > example. Is it ever the case that people might want to have a .pushsection, > then some C code, then a .popsection? (and, by analogy, the same for > libgccjit rather than C). That's the ordering issue I'm concerned about, > since at that point it matters what order the hand-written asm is in > relative to the compiler-generated asm. I think we can assume that people won't try to mix top-level assembly and C code. So, we can assume the order won't matter and document this behavior.
