From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-346164-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 22772 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2011 08:49:11 -0000
Received: (qmail 22764 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Feb 2011 08:49:10 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 08:49:05 +0000
From: "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/47602] Permit inline asm to clobber PIC register
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: REOPENED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC
Message-ID: <bug-47602-4-vKJMdnuqVo@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-47602-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-47602-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 08:49:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-02/txt/msg00630.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47602

Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |ebotcazou at gcc dot
                   |                            |gnu.org

--- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-04 08:48:46 UTC ---
> I'm suggesting saving and restoring it around the asm statement itself, not in
> the prologue and epilogue.

Although the error was primarily RTH's idea, I still think it's very
reasonable.
When you write inline asm, you're expecting a certain degree of control over
the generated code; knowing that you're clobbering the PIC register can be
useful, especially on a register-starved architecture like the x86.  If you
stand by your clobbering, then writing the conditional save-and-restore code is
trivial.