[Bug c/107738] New: Top-level inline-asm is not well documented

[Bug c/107738] New: Top-level inline-asm is not well documented

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107738

            Bug ID: 107738
           Summary: Top-level inline-asm is not well documented
           Product: gcc
           Version: 13.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Keywords: documentation, inline-asm
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---

There is only one reference to the top-level inline-asm in the whole user
manual:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-12.2.0/gcc/Basic-Asm.html#Basic-Asm


There should be a section here talking about common mistakes using top-level
inline-asm including but not limited to:
* assuming the section and alignment where the top-level inline-asm will be
emitted to
** Give examples on how to do push/pop section or using previous_section
*** make a mention this is depdent on the assembler being used
* assuming the order (reference also -fno-toplevel-reorder option) compared to
functions
* Give examples of other types of top-level inline-asm usage
* Make a mention of a limitation dealing with them and LTO and the reason why
you should avoid them and use other ways of doing the same thing instead

[Bug c/107738] Top-level inline-asm is not well documented

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107738

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I know there are other related bugs where people mess up the top-level
inline-asm too but I can't find them right now.

[Bug c/107738] Top-level inline-asm is not well documented

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107738

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Last reconfirmed|                            |2022-12-04
     Ever confirmed|0                           |1
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW

--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Looks like there was some movement in the past about this:
https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2008-12/msg01184.html
(I have not looked into the replies though).