This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: i386 inline-asm string functions - some questions
On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 07:40:42PM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Denis Zaitsev <zzz@anda.ru> writes:
>
> > So, does it mean that we are indeed speaking about the problem in
> > GCC?
>
> I think you've demonstrated that there isn't an ideal way to write
> this construct right now. ("memory" clobbers having their own
> problems).
Really, I did mean that "m" is worse than "memory" (say, "in
general"), but it was choosen to use and it is enigmatic for me.
There was a discussion in the past about the advantages given by "m"
over just "memory". And as I understand, these advantages are really
nothing. But the dummy code size they added to, say, glibc-2.3.2 is
6Kb.
> The next stage is to figure out (a) what the right notation is, and
> (b) what needs to be done in GCC to make it work. I cannot tell
> whether the semantics of "m" should change, or whether new notation
Semantics? Or may be implementation? It seems that all ok with the
semantics...