Re: Wonly-top-basic-asm

[Bernd Schmidt <bschmidt@redhat.com>]

On 03/11/2016 01:55 AM, David Wohlferd wrote:
> 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.

The example is not good, as discussed previously, and IMO the best 
option is to remove it. Otherwise I have no objections to the latest 
variant.


Bernd