Hi!
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 04:47:37PM -0500, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 12/2/18 11:38 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >PR55681 observes that currently only one qualifier is allowed for
> >inline asm, so that e.g. "volatile asm" is allowed, "const asm" is also
> >okay (with a warning), but "const v
On 12/2/18 11:38 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
PR55681 observes that currently only one qualifier is allowed for
inline asm, so that e.g. "volatile asm" is allowed, "const asm" is also
okay (with a warning), but "const volatile asm" gives an error. Also
"goto" has to be last.
This patch changes
On Sun, 2 Dec 2018, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> PR55681 observes that currently only one qualifier is allowed for
> inline asm, so that e.g. "volatile asm" is allowed, "const asm" is also
> okay (with a warning), but "const volatile asm" gives an error. Also
> "goto" has to be last.
>
> This pat
On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 12:11:30AM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>
> > So "asm const restrict" is allowed, but "asm const const restrict" isn't.
>
> No, asm const restrict isn't allowed. volatile is allowed; const and
> restrict are allowed with war
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> So "asm const restrict" is allowed, but "asm const const restrict" isn't.
No, asm const restrict isn't allowed. volatile is allowed; const and
restrict are allowed with warnings because that replicates what the old
bison parser allowed; but at m
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 11:14:45PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>
> > > What's the basis for allowing duplicates for C but not for C++?
> >
> > It is the status quo. It would make sense to allow duplicates for C++ as
> > well, sure. If that is pref
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > What's the basis for allowing duplicates for C but not for C++?
>
> It is the status quo. It would make sense to allow duplicates for C++ as
> well, sure. If that is preferred I can make a patch for it?
Duplicate qualifiers are allowed *in dec
On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 09:13:13PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> I'd expect testcases to be added for the new syntax variants (duplicate
> qualifiers / goto and new orderings thereof).
Okay.
> There's a description of the syntax in extend.texi:
>
> @example
> asm @r{[}volatile@r{]} ( @var{Assemb
I'd expect testcases to be added for the new syntax variants (duplicate
qualifiers / goto and new orderings thereof).
There's a description of the syntax in extend.texi:
@example
asm @r{[}volatile@r{]} ( @var{AssemblerTemplate}
: @var{OutputOperands}
@r{[} : @
+cc: C and C++ maintainers. Sorry I forgot before :-/
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 05:30:33PM +, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> PR55681 observes that currently only one qualifier is allowed for
> inline asm, so that e.g. "volatile asm" is allowed, "const asm" is also
> okay (with a warning), but "con
10 matches
Mail list logo
