From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 11:22:47 +0000 Subject: Re: VIS Message-Id: List-Id: References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ultralinux@vger.kernel.org "David S. Miller" writes: > From: Andi Kleen > Date: 17 Jul 1998 01:37:07 +0200 > > "David S. Miller" 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