Re: middle-end/5345: ICE when using the "+m" constraint with built-in assembly

[Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@mediaone.net>]

The following reply was made to PR middle-end/5345; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Craig Rodrigues <rodrigc@mediaone.net>
To: Andrew Zabolotny <zap@cobra.ru>
Cc: "gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>,
   "gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>,
   "rodrigc@gcc.gnu.org" <rodrigc@gcc.gnu.org>, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: middle-end/5345: ICE when using the "+m" constraint with built-in assembly
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 09:15:30 -0500

 On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 12:31:36PM +0300, Andrew Zabolotny wrote:
 > On 12 Jan 2002 19:16:26 -0000, rodrigc@gcc.gnu.org wrote:
 > >       clobber
 > >    gcc-ice.cpp:44: confused by earlier errors, bailing out
 > Hmm... it looks like the problem has been at least partially fixed. Can you 
 > please try to remove the "st" constraint, e.g. the last three lines of the asm 
 > directive will look like this:
 > 
 > 		"fmulp	%%st(1)\n"		// a
 > 	: "=&t" (ret), "+m" (x) : "m" (0.5F), "m" (1.5F)
 > 	: "eax", "st(1)", "st(2)", "st(3)", "st(4)", "st(5)", "st(6)", "st(7)"
 >   );
 
 Changing the line as you mentioned works with
 gcc 3.0.3 and gcc 3.1.
 
 
 > Is it reasonable for me to rise this question on gcc mailing list? Where else I 
 > can get an expert advice on built-in gcc assembly?
 
 Sure, you can ask on the gcc mailing list.
 The other mailing list which would be good
 would be the binutils mailing list:
 http://sources.redhat.com/binutils/