Permalink
ReplyOn Friday, 12 November 2021 at 15:10:19 UTC, max haughton wrote:
>Not always. The attribute is intended for naked asm since inlining could be completely wrong in this case.
Got that! Thanks for the info!
November 12, 2021 Re: Is DMD still not inlining "inline asm"? | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
 Posted in reply to max haughton | ||||
November 13, 2021 Re: Is DMD still not inlining "inline asm"? | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
 Posted in reply to Elronnd | On Friday, 12 November 2021 at 00:46:05 UTC, Elronnd wrote: > On Thursday, 11 November 2021 at 13:22:15 UTC, Basile B. wrote: >> As for now, I know no compiler that can do that. > > GCC can do it. Somewhat notoriously, you meant "infamously" ? > LTO can lead to bugs from underspecified asm constraints following cross-TU inlining. I have missed the LTO train TBH, gotta try that once... | |||
November 14, 2021 Re: Is DMD still not inlining "inline asm"? | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
 Posted in reply to Elronnd | On Friday, 12 November 2021 at 00:46:05 UTC, Elronnd wrote:
> On Thursday, 11 November 2021 at 13:22:15 UTC, Basile B. wrote:
>> As for now, I know no compiler that can do that.
>
> GCC can do it. Somewhat notoriously, LTO can lead to bugs from underspecified asm constraints following cross-TU inlining.
LDC can also do it with GCC asm constraints, however it is atrociously hard to get documentation and examples for this.
| |||
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation