Re: i386 inline-asm string functions - some questions

On Thu, Dec 25, 2003 at 07:40:42PM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Denis Zaitsev <[email protected]> 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...