> On Nov 28, 2015, at 2:02 AM, Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de> wrote:
>
> ...
> Well, I start to think that Jeff is right, and we should treat a asm ("") as
> if it
> were asm volatile ("" ::: ) but if the asm ("nonempty with optional %") we
> should
> treat it as asm volatile ("nonempty with optional %%" ::: "memory").
I agree. Even if that goes beyond the letter of what the manual has promised
before, it is the cautious answer, and it matches expectations of a lot of
existing code.
paul
