From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17837 invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2004 06:00:25 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 17816 invoked from network); 28 Oct 2004 06:00:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO modra.org) (144.136.221.26) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 28 Oct 2004 06:00:24 -0000 Received: by bubble.modra.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 2F053136EDE; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:30:23 +0930 (CST) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 07:38:00 -0000 From: Alan Modra To: Zack Weinberg , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: New C parser [patch] Message-ID: <20041028060023.GE3173@bubble.modra.org> Mail-Followup-To: Zack Weinberg , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <873c02e46k.fsf@codesourcery.com> <20041027184957.GB18849@redhat.com> <87k6tc3r0u.fsf@codesourcery.com> <20041027212216.GJ18849@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20041027212216.GJ18849@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg02471.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 02:22:16PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: > Personally, I think there should be no ordering guarantees between any > top-level objects. If you need particular ordering from your assembly, > then you should write one top-level asm and not two. You can also use subsections to enforce ordering, so even when multiple asms are needed there's no real need to have gcc emit them in any particular order. -- Alan Modra IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre