From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Denis Zaitsev Subject: Re: i386 inline-asm string functions - some questions Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 15:52:52 +0500 Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sources.redhat.com Message-ID: <20031227155251.A6728@zzz.ward.six> References: <20031225052045.A18774@zzz.ward.six> <20031225003819.GC13447@redhat.com> <20031225061524.E7419@zzz.ward.six> <87isk5lmk3.fsf@codesourcery.com> <20031225064518.F7419@zzz.ward.six> <87d6acjlfp.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87d6acjlfp.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com>; from zack@codesourcery.com on Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 07:40:42PM -0800 List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Zack Weinberg Cc: Andreas Jaeger , Richard Henderson , libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com, linux-gcc@vger.kernel.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 07:40:42PM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote: > Denis Zaitsev writes: > > > So, does it mean that we are indeed speaking about the problem in > > GCC? > > I think you've demonstrated that there isn't an ideal way to write > this construct right now. ("memory" clobbers having their own > problems). Really, I did mean that "m" is worse than "memory" (say, "in general"), but it was choosen to use and it is enigmatic for me. There was a discussion in the past about the advantages given by "m" over just "memory". And as I understand, these advantages are really nothing. But the dummy code size they added to, say, glibc-2.3.2 is 6Kb. > The next stage is to figure out (a) what the right notation is, and > (b) what needs to be done in GCC to make it work. I cannot tell > whether the semantics of "m" should change, or whether new notation Semantics? Or may be implementation? It seems that all ok with the semantics...