https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118687
--- Comment #5 from Vineet Gupta <vineetg at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2) > Basically what I am saying this should be filed in gas rather than in GCC. Yeah understood but is this really the right thing to do - to re-implement all the constant synthesis quirks (bit patterns) + extension support in assembler. I guess the user is getting what they ask for - inline asm means user wants control over what gets generated (by compiler as a whole, gcc and gas included). I'd argue that gcc should flag this as invalid insn.
