Re: [Sdcc-user] Possible changes to inline assembler syntax

[Philipp K. K. <pk...@sp...>]

Am 14.07.22 um 13:24 schrieb Ralph Doncaster:
> It's used in a couple spots in ch554_sdcc
> https://github.com/Blinkinlabs/ch554_sdcc
> I've used it in a couple places in CMSIS_DAP
> https://github.com/nerdralph/ch554_sdcc/tree/master/examples/CMSIS_DAP
> 
> It's a lot easier to use than  gcc-style inline asm.  The gcc inline
> asm rules with out: in: clobbers: labels are very complicated.
> I think the __asm ... __endasm form makes for cleaner looking code
> when optimizing individual functions into asm like I do here:
> https://github.com/nerdralph/ch554_sdcc/blob/master/include/debug.c#L119

Personally, I mostly put assembler code into separate C files. But where 
I didn't, I also have used form 1 so far.

Do you need support for preprocessor directives or macros in between 
__asm and __endasm? I need to check the details, but I think that could 
make a resonable compromise: it keeps backwards compability with most 
inline asm in form 1, but also should most preprocessor vs inline-asm 
issues.

Philipp