From: David Wohlferd <dw@LimeGreenSocks.com>
To: Bernd Schmidt <bschmidt@redhat.com>,
Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>,
Sandra Loosemore <sandra@codesourcery.com>,
"gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>,
"jason@redhat.com" <jason@redhat.com>,
"segher@kernel.crashing.org" <segher@kernel.crashing.org>,
"Paul_Koning@Dell.com" <Paul_Koning@Dell.com>,
Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com>,
"hubicka@ucw.cz" <hubicka@ucw.cz>,
David Wohlferd <dw@LimeGreenSocks.com>
Subject: Re: Wonly-top-basic-asm
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 00:56:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56E21779.4020804@LimeGreenSocks.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <56D3ECEE.4050503@LimeGreenSocks.com>
So, we have been discussing this issue for 4 months now. Over that
time, I have tried to incorporate everyone's feedback.
As a result we have gone from a tiny doc patch (just describe the
current semantics), to a big doc patch (completely deprecate basic asm
when used in a function) to a medium doc patch + code fix (warning when
using basic asm in a function) and now back to a
slightly-bigger-than-tiny doc patch.
I have made no changes since the last patch I posted
(https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-02/msg01406.html) for the
reasons discussed below.
I assert that this patch both contains important information users need
and is better than the current text. I expect that Sandra is prepared
to check this in as soon as someone signs off on its technical accuracy.
dw
On 2/28/2016 11:02 PM, David Wohlferd wrote:
> 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
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-11 0:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-01-24 22:24 Wonly-top-basic-asm David Wohlferd
2016-01-25 12:25 ` Wonly-top-basic-asm Bernd Schmidt
2016-01-28 7:21 ` Wonly-top-basic-asm David Wohlferd
2016-02-08 3:46 ` Wonly-top-basic-asm David Wohlferd
2016-02-08 6:45 ` AW: Wonly-top-basic-asm Bernd Edlinger
2016-02-08 20:15 ` David Wohlferd
2016-02-10 23:50 ` David Wohlferd
2016-02-11 6:51 ` AW: " Bernd Edlinger
2016-02-12 7:01 ` David Wohlferd
2016-02-11 15:40 ` Bernd Schmidt
2016-02-11 16:03 ` Sandra Loosemore
2016-02-12 7:08 ` David Wohlferd
2016-02-12 7:05 ` David Wohlferd
2016-02-12 12:51 ` Bernd Schmidt
2016-02-13 1:03 ` Sandra Loosemore
2016-02-14 4:00 ` David Wohlferd
2016-02-20 1:03 ` David Wohlferd
2016-02-20 12:08 ` Wonly-top-basic-asm Bernd Edlinger
2016-02-21 10:28 ` Wonly-top-basic-asm David Wohlferd
2016-02-26 15:10 ` Wonly-top-basic-asm Bernd Schmidt
2016-02-29 7:02 ` Wonly-top-basic-asm David Wohlferd
2016-03-11 0:56 ` David Wohlferd [this message]
2016-03-14 15:29 ` Wonly-top-basic-asm Bernd Schmidt
2016-03-17 5:24 ` Wonly-top-basic-asm David Wohlferd
2016-03-18 13:32 ` Wonly-top-basic-asm Bernd Schmidt
2016-03-18 15:01 ` Wonly-top-basic-asm Richard Biener
2016-03-18 19:14 ` Wonly-top-basic-asm Bernd Schmidt
2016-02-14 3:57 ` AW: Wonly-top-basic-asm David Wohlferd
2016-01-26 0:32 ` Wonly-top-basic-asm Segher Boessenkool
2016-01-26 12:11 ` Wonly-top-basic-asm Bernd Schmidt
2016-01-26 16:12 ` Wonly-top-basic-asm Segher Boessenkool
2016-01-26 23:38 ` Wonly-top-basic-asm David Wohlferd
2016-02-16 14:03 ` Wonly-top-basic-asm Jan Hubicka
2016-02-16 20:02 ` Wonly-top-basic-asm Bernd Edlinger
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=56E21779.4020804@LimeGreenSocks.com \
--to=dw@limegreensocks.com \
--cc=Paul_Koning@Dell.com \
--cc=aph@redhat.com \
--cc=bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de \
--cc=bschmidt@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=hubicka@ucw.cz \
--cc=jason@redhat.com \
--cc=law@redhat.com \
--cc=rth@redhat.com \
--cc=sandra@codesourcery.com \
--cc=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).