So, we have been discussing this issue for 4 months now. Over that
time, I have tried to incorporate everyone's feedback.
As a result we have gone from a tiny doc patch (just describe the
current semantics), to a big doc patch (completely deprecate basic asm
when used in a function) to a medium doc patch + code fix (warning when
using basic asm in a function) and now back to a
slightly-bigger-than-tiny doc patch.
I have made no changes since the last patch I posted
(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01406.html) for the
reasons discussed below.
I assert that this patch both contains important information users need
and is better than the current text. I expect that Sandra is prepared
to check this in as soon as someone signs off on its technical accuracy.
dw
On 2/28/2016 11:02 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
On 2/26/2016 7:09 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
On 02/21/2016 11:27 AM, David Wohlferd wrote:
So now what? I have one Bernd who likes the sample, and one who
doesn't. Obviously I think what I'm proposing is better than what's
there now and I've done my best to say why. But me believing it to be
better doesn't get anything checked in.
I hadn't thought it through well enough. Jan's objection (order isn't
guaranteed) is relevant. I'd drop the example.
To be clear: Are you suggesting that we delete the sample that is
there and have no example at all for basic asm?
I'm not sure I agree. Looking at the linux kernel source, there are
times and places where basic asm is appropriate, even necessary. I
realize that macros are an uncommon usage. But it makes for a more
interesting sample than simply outputting a section name.
If ordering is your concern, would adding a reference to
-fno-toplevel-reorder make you feel better about this? It seems
unnecessary in this particular context, but mentioning this option on
the basic asm page is certainly appropriate.
dw
