From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9233 invoked by alias); 6 May 2010 15:04:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 7735 invoked by uid 48); 6 May 2010 15:03:49 -0000 Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 15:04:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20100506150349.7734.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug inline-asm/43998] inline assembler: can't set clobbering for input register In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "socketpair at gmail dot com" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-05/txt/msg00595.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #9 from socketpair at gmail dot com 2010-05-06 15:03 ------- > Not if you make the output unused by not using it. I do not understand why gcc distinguish between 'specifying register as output' and 'specifying as clobbering'. I always considered, that 'clobber list' specify list of items which may be changed *AFTER* the end of instruction(s). So I do not understand why adding eax in clobber list will break compilation. I found some posts where people create size_t dummy; and specify this variable as output. insted of just specifying this register in clobber-list. Why not to fix bug I have reported? Maybe convert to feature? -- socketpair at gmail dot com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED Resolution|INVALID | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=43998