Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] Eliminate CONFIG_CC_HAS_ASM_GOTO_TIED_OUTPUT

From: Nicolas Schier

Date: Thu Nov 12 2026 - 16:23:53 EST


On Thu, Nov 12, 2026 at 10:47:53AM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2026 at 12:34:50PM +0100, Nicolas Schier wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 11, 2026 at 05:52:07PM -0700, Nathan Chancellor wrote:
> > > -config CC_HAS_ASM_GOTO_TIED_OUTPUT
> > > - depends on CC_HAS_ASM_GOTO_OUTPUT
> > > - # Detect buggy gcc and clang, fixed in gcc-11 clang-14.
> > > - def_bool $(success,echo 'int foo(int *x) { asm goto (".long (%l[bar]) - .": "+m"(*x) ::: bar); return *x; bar: return 0; }' | $CC -x c - -c -o /dev/null)
> >
> > The comments reads as if gcc 8 to 10 are affected. Is the comment
> > somehow misleading, or should we still keep this until gcc-10 is the
> > minimum gcc version?
>
> It is a little misleading. GCC 11 was the first version that supported
> asm goto with outputs, so this program will not compile with GCC 8 to 10
> as a result:
>
> <stdin>: In function 'foo':
> <stdin>:1:51: error: expected ':' before string constant
>
> The bug that it is trying to trigger was fixed during the GCC 11
> development cycle between the initial asm goto with outputs commit and
> the final release. As a result, for GCC, if it supports asm goto with
> outputs, it supports tied outputs in the expected manner.
>
> This test was mostly to catch buggy versions of clang, as asm goto with
> outputs was first shipped in clang-11 but using tied outputs breaks the
> build until they were fixed to be compatible with GCC in clang-14:
>
> <stdin>:1:29: error: invalid operand in inline asm: '.long (${1:l}) - .'
> int foo(int *x) { asm goto (".long (%l[bar]) - .": "+m"(*x) ::: bar); return *x; bar: return 0; }
> ^
> <stdin>:1:29: error: unknown token in expression in '.long' directive
> <inline asm>:1:9: note: instantiated into assembly here
> .long () - .
> ^
> 2 errors generated.
>
> So if the compiler results in CONFIG_CC_HAS_ASM_GOTO_OUTPUT=y, we know
> that CONFIG_CC_HAS_ASM_GOTO_TIED_OUTPUT=y will be present as well.

ah ok, thanks for clarification!

Reviewed-by: Nicolas Schier <nsc@xxxxxxxxxx>

--
Nicolas