On Jan 6, 2002, Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 11:19:40PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 08:59:47AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>> > asm("" : "=r" (x) : "0" (y));
>> Even if gcc learned to analyze asm statements (and use it in something other
>> than scheduling), I'm sure this wouldn't be optimized away exactly because
>> this construct is used by various projects exactly for this purpose (make
>> gcc think it can have any value allowed for the type in question).
> Yes, but there's no gaurentee of that. It'd probably break a few things
> if they did, but there's nothing stopping them from doing it.
If we documented this side effect of such asm statements, one would
have to come up with a very strong case to change it.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 21:00:32 EST