Thanks to all for the info!
(Summary for the assembler list, since the action was all on IBM-MAIN: It won't
hurt; might affect optimization slightly, but probably not worth worrying
about.)
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signo
On Mon, 1 May 2023 18:18:38 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote:
>Doh, I of course meant -qasm not -dasm.
>
>
>
>From: Phil Smith III
>Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 5:02 PM
>To: ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu; IBM Mainframe Assembler List
>(assembler-l...@listserv.uga.edu)
>Su
On Mon, 1 May 2023 17:02:23 -0400, Phil Smith III wrote:
>(Cross-posted to IBM-MAIN and the assembler list)
>
>...; what isn't clear is whether there's any downside to it beyond the
>unlikely case that you decide to have a function of your own named asm or
>__asm or __asm__. Is there?
>
I belie
Doh, I of course meant -qasm not -dasm.
From: Phil Smith III
Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 5:02 PM
To: ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu; IBM Mainframe Assembler List
(assembler-l...@listserv.uga.edu)
Subject: XLC inline assembler question
(Cross-posted to IBM-MAIN and the assembler list)
When
(Cross-posted to IBM-MAIN and the assembler list)
When compiling C programs with XLC, you need to specify the -dasm flag to have
inline assembler code recognized as such. I can see PoE arguments for requiring
that option; what isn't clear is whether there's any downside to it beyond the
unlikel
