Re: VIS

[Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>]

"David S. Miller" <davem@dm.cobaltmicro.com> writes:

>    From: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>
>    Date: 17 Jul 1998 01:37:07 +0200
> 
>    "David S. Miller" <davem@dm.cobaltmicro.com> writes:
> 
>    > (side comment: this *.il inline assembler interface of sunpro is one
>    > of the things I totally think they got wrong and which gcc has a much
>    > superier interface, look at the syntax, it's just gross)
> 
>    The big advantage of the Sun solution is that their templates are schedulable,
>    while this is just impossible with the gcc inline assembly.
> 
> Not true at all, it depends upon how a port was done.  The Sparc
> backend creates a situation where all use inline asm's are considered
> multi-instruction.  GCC does not require this.  And if this were
> changed, inline assembly could be scheduled just like anything else.

In theory it could be done (by specifying the function units in a fourth
column similar to what is done in the machine descriptions). The problem with
that is that it would add horrible compiler version/CPU revision dependencies
to the code. When I understand it correctly then Sun's approach avoids this
problem - their templates are not pretty, but portable over revisions.

-Andi