On 12/15/2015 5:01 PM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
On Dec 15, 2015, at 5:22 PM, David Wohlferd <d...@limegreensocks.com> wrote:
On 12/14/2015 1:53 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
This just seems like another argument for deprecating basic asm and pushing
people to extended.
Yes. I am not arguing against deprecation. We should do that.
You know, there are several people who seem to generally support this
direction. Not enough to call it a consensus, but perhaps the beginning of one:
- Andrew Haley
- David Wohlferd
- Richard Henderson
- Segher Boessenkool
- Bernd Schmidt
Anyone else want to add their name here?
No, but I want to speak in opposition.
Fair enough.
"Deprecate" means two things: warn now, remove later.
Yup. That's what I'm proposing. Although "later" could be a decade
down the road. That's how long 24414 has been sitting.
For reasons stated by others, I object to "remove later".
So "warn now, remove never" I would support, but not "deprecate".
So how about:
- Update the basic asm docs to describe basic asm's current (and
historical) semantics (ie clobber nothing).
- Emphasize how that might be different from users' expectations or the
behavior of other compilers.
- Warn that this could change in future versions of gcc. To avoid
impacts from this change, use extended.
- Mention -Wonly-top-basic-asm as a way to locate affected statements.
Would that be something you could support?
What's your take on making -Wonly-top-basic-asm a default (either now or
v7)? Is making it a non-default a waste of time because no one will
ever see it? Or is making it a default too aggressive? What about
adding it to -Wall?
dw
