Re: Wonly-top-basic-asm

[David Wohlferd <dw@LimeGreenSocks.com>]

On 2/26/2016 7:09 AM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 02/21/2016 11:27 AM, David Wohlferd wrote:
>> So now what?  I have one Bernd who likes the sample, and one who
>> doesn't.  Obviously I think what I'm proposing is better than what's
>> there now and I've done my best to say why.  But me believing it to be
>> better doesn't get anything checked in.
>
> I hadn't thought it through well enough. Jan's objection (order isn't 
> guaranteed) is relevant. I'd drop the example.

To be clear: Are you suggesting that we delete the sample that is there 
and have no example at all for basic asm?

I'm not sure I agree.  Looking at the linux kernel source, there are 
times and places where basic asm is appropriate, even necessary.  I 
realize that macros are an uncommon usage.  But it makes for a more 
interesting sample than simply outputting a section name.

If ordering is your concern, would adding a reference to 
-fno-toplevel-reorder make you feel better about this?  It seems 
unnecessary in this particular context, but mentioning this option on 
the basic asm page is certainly appropriate.

dw