Mail Archives: djgpp/2000/02/02/14:58:52
Dieter Buerssner <buers AT gmx DOT de> wrote:
> broeker AT acp3bf DOT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de (Hans-Bernhard Broeker) wrote in
> <86i2ub$jn8$1 AT nets3 DOT rz DOT RWTH-Aachen DOT DE>:
>>Hans Yperman <hyperman AT eduserv1 DOT rug DOT ac DOT be> wrote:
[...]
>>It's not a question of DJGPP, but of gcc version.
> Yes. So this forum may not be the correct one to discuss this, but ...
>>gcc-2.95.2 is
>>considerably less forgiving regarding not quite correct extended
>>inline assembly than old gcc-2.8.1 was. You're not allowed to mark the
>>same register both as 'input' and 'dirty', IIRC.
> I believe, you are correct. But it seems stupid to me, and is
> not compatible with older versions.
According to the explanation on the GCC web pages, the old method that
tolerated this was simply too broken to let it live. It could confuse
the optimizer into producing incorrect code, for some rare, but
existing cases. They claim they had no choice but to break backwards
compatibility, once and for all.
[...]
>>The GCC home page has more details on this.
> Do you have an URL for this?
http://org.gnu.de/software/gcc/gcc.html --- GCC home mirror in Germany.
http://gcc.gnu.org/fom_serv/cache/23.html
The second is the page inside the GCC FAQ that discusses this particular
issue.
--
Hans-Bernhard Broeker (broeker AT physik DOT rwth-aachen DOT de)
Even if all the snow were burnt, ashes would remain.
- Raw text -