On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Renato Golin <renato.go...@linaro.org> wrote: > On 19 February 2014 11:58, Richard Sandiford > <rsand...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >> I agree that having an unrecognised asm shouldn't be a hard error until >> assembly time though. Saleem, is the problem that this is being rejected >> earlier? > > Hi Andrew, Richard, > > Thanks for your reviews! We agree that we should actually just ignore > the contents until object emission. > > Just for context, one of the reasons why we enabled inline assembly > checks is for some obscure cases when the snippet changes the > instructions set (arm -> thumb) and the rest of the function becomes > garbage. Our initial implementation was to always emit .arm/.thumb > after *any* inline assembly, which would become a nop in the worst > case. But since we had easy access to the assembler, we thought: "why > not?".
With the unified assembly format, you should not need those .arm/.thumb and in fact emitting them can make things even worse. Thanks, Andrew Pinski > > The idea is now to try to parse the snippet for cases like .arm/.thumb > but only emit a warning IFF -Wbad-inline-asm (or whatever) is set (and > not to make it on by default), otherwise, ignore. We're hoping our > assembler will be able to cope with the multiple levels of indirection > automagically. ;) > > Thanks again! > --renato
