On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 11:01:40AM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Dez 15 2020, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
>
> > diff --git c/libcody/fatal.cc w/libcody/fatal.cc
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 00000000000..b35094e6b19
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ w/libcody/fatal.cc
> > @@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
> > +// CODYlib -*- mode:c++ -*-
> > +// Copyright (C) 2019-2020 Nathan Sidwell, nat...@acm.org
> > +// License: Apache v2.0
> > +
> > +// Cody
> > +#include "internal.hh"
> > +// C
> > +#include <csignal>
> > +#include <cstdint>
> > +#include <cstdio>
> > +#include <cstdlib>
> > +#include <cstring>
> > +
> > +namespace Cody {
> > +
> > +#if NMS_CHECKING
> > +void (AssertFailed) (Location loc) noexcept
> > +{
> > + (HCF) ("assertion failed", loc);
> > +}
> > +void (Unreachable) (Location loc) noexcept
> > +{
> > + (HCF) ("unreachable reached", loc);
> > +}
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +void (HCF) (char const *msg
> > +#if NMS_CHECKING
> > + , Location const loc
> > +#endif
> > + ) noexcept
> > +{ // HCF - you goofed!
> > + __asm__ volatile ("nop"); // HCF - you goofed!
>
> /tmp/ccabCPZ7.s: Assembler messages:
> /tmp/ccabCPZ7.s:28: Error: Wrong number of input operands
Yeah. If it is meant as an optimization barrier, shouldn't it be just
__asm__ volatile ("");
or
__asm__ volatile ("" : : : "memory");
? That said, shouldn't that be guarded on the compiler being GCC
(or some other that supports inline asm)? Not all compilers have to support
that.
Jakub
