On 11/23/2015 10:12 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 09:48:42PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/23/2015 07:22 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Here is a test that shows that on at least PowerPC the basic asm is
identical to the extended asm without clobber (compile with -O2 -S a
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 09:48:42PM -0700, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 11/23/2015 07:22 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >
> >Here is a test that shows that on at least PowerPC the basic asm is
> >identical to the extended asm without clobber (compile with -O2 -S and
> >-fno-ipa-icf if you want to have it e
On 11/23/2015 07:22 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
Here is a test that shows that on at least PowerPC the basic asm is
identical to the extended asm without clobber (compile with -O2 -S and
-fno-ipa-icf if you want to have it easier to read). In this case,
the basic asm is treated as not clobber
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 05:39:17PM -0800, David Wohlferd wrote:
> On 11/23/2015 1:44 PM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
> >>On Nov 23, 2015, at 4:36 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
> >>
> >>...
> >>>The more I think about it, I'm just not keen on forcing all those
> >>>old-style asms to change.
> >>If you
On 11/23/2015 1:44 PM, paul_kon...@dell.com wrote:
On Nov 23, 2015, at 4:36 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
...
The more I think about it, I'm just not keen on forcing all those old-style
asms to change.
If you mean you aren't keen to change them to "clobber all," I'm with you. If
you are worrie
There's a proposal working through the C++ committee to define the order
of evaluation of subexpressions that previously had unspecified ordering:
http://www.open-std.org/Jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/p0145r0.pdf
I agree with much of this, but was concerned about the proposal to
define order
> On Nov 23, 2015, at 4:36 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
>
> ...
>> The more I think about it, I'm just not keen on forcing all those old-style
>> asms to change.
>
> If you mean you aren't keen to change them to "clobber all," I'm with you.
> If you are worried about changing them from basic to
On 11/23/2015 12:37 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 11/23/2015 03:04 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 21/11/15 12:56, David Wohlferd wrote:
So, what now?
While I'd like to take the big step and start kicking out warnings for
non-top-level right now, that may be too bold for phase 3. A more
modest step for v
On 11/23/2015 2:04 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 21/11/15 12:56, David Wohlferd wrote:
So, what now?
While I'd like to take the big step and start kicking out warnings for
non-top-level right now, that may be too bold for phase 3. A more
modest step for v6 would just provide a way to find them (m
On 11/23/2015 03:04 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 21/11/15 12:56, David Wohlferd wrote:
So, what now?
While I'd like to take the big step and start kicking out warnings for
non-top-level right now, that may be too bold for phase 3. A more
modest step for v6 would just provide a way to find them (
On 2015.11.23 at 11:11 -0800, Steven Noonan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
> wrote:
> > On 2015.11.16 at 14:18 -0800, Steven Noonan wrote:
> >> Hi folks,
> >>
> >> (I'm not subscribed to the list, so please CC me on all responses.)
> >>
> >> This is using GCC 5.2 on
On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf
wrote:
> On 2015.11.16 at 14:18 -0800, Steven Noonan wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> (I'm not subscribed to the list, so please CC me on all responses.)
>>
>> This is using GCC 5.2 on Linux x86_64. On a project at work I've found
>> that one of our sh
On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 11:06:48AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 10/13/2015 07:12 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >In some cases, the work of the cse1 pass is counterproductive, as
> >we noticed on s390x. The effect described below is present since
> >at least 4.8.0. Note that this may not become manifes
On 21/11/15 12:56, David Wohlferd wrote:
> So, what now?
>
> While I'd like to take the big step and start kicking out warnings for
> non-top-level right now, that may be too bold for phase 3. A more
> modest step for v6 would just provide a way to find them (maybe
> something like -Wnon-top-b
Note that basic asm is part of the standard C++ syntax. "An asm
declaration has the form
asm-definition:
asm ( string-literal ) ;
The asm declaration is conditionally-supported; its meaning is
implementation-defined. [ Note: Typically
it is used to pass information through the implementation to
15 matches
Mail list logo
