Blog post on new inline assembly syntax - #600
Conversation
|
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
|
cc @Amanieu for review. |
| v = inout(reg) value => _, | ||
| popcnt = out(reg) popcnt, | ||
| out("rax") _, // scratch | ||
| inout("rdi") bits.as_mut_ptr() => _, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
options(nostack) could be used here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This doesn't seem to make any difference in the generated code.
Along the same lines, I could use option(readonly) in the syscall example, but I don't think doing so adds any value. These are supposed to be very simple examples, and people will have the full RFC available for reference.
|
I'd like to hold the blog post back a bit while we sort out the various ICEs with the new inline asm (#72570, #72484). At least until we get fixes for those into nightly. |
|
@Amanieu Seems reasonable to me. And thanks for the feedback; I've updated the post. |
nikomatsakis
left a comment
nikomatsakis
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me! One nit.
|
@nikomatsakis Thanks for reviewing and approving. @Amanieu Please post here as soon as you're ready for this to be posted. |
|
Please ping me before merging this PR, thanks, =) |
|
@Amanieu It looks like both of the issues you referenced have been fixed. Are there any other things you want to wait for before this gets posted? |
|
I think it should be fine to post now. There are a few pending issues but they are only related to diagnostics (rust-lang/rust#72825 and rust-lang/rust#40555) and won't affect usability. |
|
@nikomatsakis Any reservations about posting? |
|
Nope, let's post. |
5 participants
No description provided.