From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1228 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2002 14:16:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 1191 invoked by uid 71); 14 Jan 2002 14:16:03 -0000 Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 06:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020114141603.1184.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Craig Rodrigues Subject: Re: middle-end/5345: ICE when using the "+m" constraint with built-in assembly Reply-To: Craig Rodrigues X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00512.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR middle-end/5345; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Craig Rodrigues To: Andrew Zabolotny Cc: "gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org" , "gcc-prs@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/