Re: Macro To Generate Inline Assembly

On Apr 29, 11:35 am, Daniel Krügler <daniel.krueg...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> On 29 Apr., 07:23, Le Chaud Lapin <jaibudu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > If the reasons for adding __asm to C++ were listed in order of
> > im****tance, I'd say speed up of critical operations would be in the
> > top 10. :)
>
> What should we do with __asm? We already have asm - as
> shown in my previous answer - it was reserved as a keyword
> by Our Holy Standard and it is really a shame that no compiler
> writer sup****ts it (This is of course a provocative statement,
> because
> I would like to hear any counter examples ;-)).

Hmmmm...you have a point.  Microsoft writes in their do***entation on
asm:

"Visual C++ sup****t for the Standard C++ asm keyword is limited to the
fact that the compiler will not generate an error on the keyword.
However, an asm block will not generate any meaningful code. Use __asm
instead of asm."

Why are they doing this?

I hope I have not been tricked into using __asm instead of asm just
because Microsoft said so.

-Le Chaud Lapin-







-- 
      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm
for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]