From:	Nate Eldredge <neldredge AT hmc DOT edu>
Newsgroups:	comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject:	Re: inefficiency of GCC output code & -O problem
Date:	16 Apr 2000 13:30:09 -0700
Organization:	InterWorld Communications
Lines:	17
Message-ID:	<83vh1hn60e.fsf@mercury.st.hmc.edu>
References:	<38F98775 DOT E0FB9148 AT mtu-net DOT ru>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	mercury.st.hmc.edu
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Trace:	nntp1.interworld.net 955917276 4627 134.173.45.219 (16 Apr 2000 20:34:36 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:	usenet AT nntp1 DOT interworld DOT net
NNTP-Posting-Date:	16 Apr 2000 20:34:36 GMT
User-Agent:	Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.5
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

"Alexei A. Frounze" <alex DOT fru AT mtu-net DOT ru> writes:

> By *official* I mean correct/valid description of inline
> asm. I.e. one that doesn't make you to correct my inline asm as you
> were doing all the time. :)

The section in the GCC manual is as effective as it gets.  When that
doesn't match the behavior of the compiler, that constitutes a bug in
one or the other.  But I don't think I've seen a convincing example of
this in this thread.  If you think you have it, post the example and
the piece of the manual that permits it, and the code the compiler
generates.

-- 

Nate Eldredge
neldredge AT hmc DOT edu

- Raw text -