From: Nate Eldredge Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: inefficiency of GCC output code & -O problem Date: 16 Apr 2000 13:30:09 -0700 Organization: InterWorld Communications Lines: 17 Message-ID: <83vh1hn60e.fsf@mercury.st.hmc.edu> References: <38F98775 DOT E0FB9148 AT mtu-net DOT ru> NNTP-Posting-Host: mercury.st.hmc.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: nntp1.interworld.net 955917276 4627 134.173.45.219 (16 Apr 2000 20:34:36 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet AT nntp1 DOT interworld DOT net NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Apr 2000 20:34:36 GMT User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) Emacs/20.5 To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com "Alexei A. Frounze" writes: > By *official* I mean correct/valid description of inline > asm. I.e. one that doesn't make you to correct my inline asm as you > were doing all the time. :) The section in the GCC manual is as effective as it gets. When that doesn't match the behavior of the compiler, that constitutes a bug in one or the other. But I don't think I've seen a convincing example of this in this thread. If you think you have it, post the example and the piece of the manual that permits it, and the code the compiler generates. -- Nate Eldredge neldredge AT hmc DOT edu