From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25486 invoked by alias); 31 Oct 2007 15:30:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 25464 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Oct 2007 15:30:43 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from py-out-1112.google.com (HELO py-out-1112.google.com) (64.233.166.182) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:30:37 +0000 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id a29so385458pyi for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:30:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.155.19 with SMTP id h19mr1471735qbo.1193844633344; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:30:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.65.232.20 with HTTP; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:30:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <84fc9c000710310830i10fb4bc5vd8c73a3ade568811@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:43:00 -0000 From: "Richard Guenther" To: tromey@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PING] Target hook for rewriting inline asm constraints Cc: "Andreas Krebbel" , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20071030115424.GA6864@homer.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-10/txt/msg01884.txt.bz2 On 10/31/07, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Andreas" == Andreas Krebbel writes: > > Andreas> could a C front end and/or middle end maintainer please have > Andreas> a look at this one: > Andreas> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-10/msg01407.html > > I'm not an FE or ME maintainer but I took a look anyway. > I only looked at the mechanics of the change, since I really don't > know whether it is desirable or not. I also wonder how you can distinguish between "old" and "new" "m" used in asms. How do you know which semantics the user chose? IMHO "semantics" of asm constrains should never change, but instead you should introduce new machine specific constraints if necessary. The patch doesn't come with a testcase or an example showing how this should work or how it would break without it, so it's hard to tell if you have a point. But in general - asm constrains rewriting?? uh no. Richard.