Hi,
On Thu, 17 Dec 2015 15:13:07, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> > 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
On 12/17/2015 02:41 AM, David Wohlferd wrote:
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 ch
On 12/17/2015 03:39 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 17/12/15 01:41, David Wohlferd wrote:
On the contrary, I would be surprised to learn that there are ANY
compilers (other than clang) that support gcc's extended asm format.
Prepare to be surprised: Sun Studio compilers seem to support it
just fine
On 17/12/15 11:39, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 17/12/15 01:41, David Wohlferd wrote:
>> On the contrary, I would be surprised to learn that there are ANY
>> compilers (other than clang) that support gcc's extended asm format.
>
> Prepare to be surprised: Sun Studio compilers seem to support it
> j
On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Hi,
> PR 68948 shows a case which has been broken for a long time and very
> hard to see. So I am recommending that we introduce an assert inside
> the gimplifier if we process an error_mark_node and there was no
> errors or sorrys from th
On 17/12/15 01:41, David Wohlferd wrote:
> On the contrary, I would be surprised to learn that there are ANY
> compilers (other than clang) that support gcc's extended asm format.
Prepare to be surprised: Sun Studio compilers seem to support it
just fine.
Andrew.
