From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 3C1983858C39; Tue,  9 Jan 2024 11:00:16 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 3C1983858C39
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1704798017;
	bh=nwlDgzFezrHuQkBVFEtIBylGkpwafZRMpAZIpQDHbu8=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=jBAw7q/ah+J3pxcUnrNrEUKDtDI/Bi1NXUB57WEISZLN4YJFjFKJeqe+yKpkpPhb9
	 srsmuHluqe1cRpp01APiac5NaQYqhOEkZBkndmfJGvJ11DYnUuDtY5osdwETcTYEOc
	 B1XLjmOmHxV/6wNDKS3szvtetxawv1NvLgTZTF6M=
From: "segher at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/113280] Strange error for empty inline
 assembly with +X constraint
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2024 11:00:13 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic, inline-asm, rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: segher at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-113280-4-bjwnn8bLxk@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-113280-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-113280-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D113280

--- Comment #9 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Alexander Monakov from comment #6)
> From the context given in the gcc-help thread, the goal is to place an
> optimization barrier in a sequence of floating-point calculation. "+r" is
> inappropriate for floats, as it usually incurs a reload from a
> floating-point register to a GPR and back, and there's no universal
> constraint for FP regs (e.g. on amd64 it is "+x" for SSE registers, but "=
+t"
> for long double (or x87 FPU on 32-bit x86)).

Yup.  "Some target-specific register constraint" :-)=