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

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

Am 14.07.22 um 14:46 schrieb Maarten Brock:
> Hi Philipp,
> 
> Philipp Klaus Krause schreef op 2022-07-14 12:58:
>> SDCC currently supports two forms of inline assembler:
>>
>> 1:
>> __asm
>> asm code here
>> __endasm;
>>
>> and
>>
>> 2:
>> __asm("asm code here");
> 
> Does (or will) this second form also support multiple asm instructions? 
> AFAIK it doesn't.

void f(void)
{
	__asm__("nop\nnop");
}

and

void f(void)
{
	__asm__("nop\n"
		"nop");
}

both work.


>> Form 1 requires some ugly hacks to avoid conflicts in the preprocessor.
>> I wonder if we could drop those, and maybe even change the keyword in
>> form 2 to __asm__.
>>
>> Does anyone rely on form 1 and would not want support for it dropped?
>> Any opinions on the possible rename of form 2?
> 
> I have no objections against renaming with a deprecation period, though 
> I do wonder why.

Looks like I made a mistake there. Actually, form 2 already uses 
__asm__, and doesn't even work with __asm now. I think I was looking at 
some outdated documentation.

Since people like form 1, I'd now think we should keep it, but drop 
#pragma sdcc_hash. That looks like a better way forward and also solves 
the issues.

Philipp