Hi, On Tue, 21 Jun 2016, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > As said in the various threads about basic asms, all correctness > > problems can be solved by making GCC more conservative in handling > > them (or better said: not making it less conservative). > > Well, yes. That's exactly why we've agreed to change basic asms to make > them clobber memory, i.e. to make GCC more conservative. Exactly. But this thread is about something else, see subject. > Well, maybe. It's also fairly likely that many work by accident. IMO > this is more of a statement of hope than any kind of reasonable > expectation. Like yours, of course. > > Then the compiler better won't change into less conservative handling > > of basic asms. > > Repeat, repeat: the change being made is to make gcc MORE > conservative. This thread is about deprecating basic asms. That's not more conservative, it's simply breaking backward compatibility for many users. > > they work fine now. Even if it weren't so it still would be silly if > > GCC simply could regard the former as the latter internally. > > That's what we're doing. Currently. But not the proposed patch in this thread, and the general idea of deprecating the basic syntax. Ciao, Michael.
