From: dontmailme AT iname DOT com (Steamer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Subject: Re: inefficiency of GCC output code & -O problem
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 08:27:06 GMT
Organization: always disorganized
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <38f6d657.1634490@news.freeserve.net>
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000413112851 DOT 28180G-100000 AT is> <38F6137B DOT 47481761 AT mtu-net DOT ru> <38f6342c DOT 52524603 AT news DOT freeserve DOT net> <38F637C7 DOT 4F4ECB6 AT mtu-net DOT ru> <38F6A957 DOT 90A167DE AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <38F6B936 DOT 3D092A46 AT mtu-net DOT ru>
NNTP-Posting-Host: modem-166.ohio.dialup.pol.co.uk
X-Trace: news6.svr.pol.co.uk 955700826 30143 62.137.86.166 (14 Apr 2000 08:27:06 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Apr 2000 08:27:06 GMT
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT theplanet DOT net
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Alexei A. Frounze wrote:

>Why GCC/AS accept *different rules* of inline ASM under different optimization
>switches?

It doesn't.  But if you give gcc incorrect information about your inline
asm, then gcc is likely to produce incorrect code.  You were simply lucky
(actually, unlucky) that one particular version of gcc, when used without
optimization, happens to generate correct code from your buggy source.

S.