On 12/01/2015 04:25 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Tue, 1 Dec 2015, David Wohlferd wrote:
Saying it's dead in the docs is the first step to making it dead in the code.
This patch just implements an optional warning (unless #3,4 crank it up to a
default warning), but the intent is that eventually (v7? v8?) this turns into
a fatal error.
I am strongly skeptical of this whole direction. As I noted, the basic
asm syntax is part of the standard C++ syntax. We should define it to do
something sensible consistent with existing practice. (That does not
exclude a non-default warning, not part of -Wall or -Wextra, for people
who wish to avoid basic asm in functions.)
Isn't "asm" conditionally supported for ISO C++? In which case it's not
mandatory and semantics are implementation defined.
http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/asm
So we have a lot of leeway in what we do.
My strong preference is still to document the desired semantics for GCC
and treat anything that does not adhere to those semantics as a bug.
I think a non-default warning is fine. A default warning (or
-Wall/-Westra) is probably undesirable, though I'm still willing to be
convinced either way on that.
jeff
