David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> writes:
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 12:17:12 -0700, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
> wrote:
>> santosh <santosh.k83@gmail.com> writes:
>> [...]
>> > Personally I'd prefer the Standardisation of the asm keyword and
>> > associated semantics, as has been done with C++, than further messing
>> > around with register.
>>
>> C++ defines the asm keyword and its syntax:
>>
>> asm ( string-literal ) ;
>>
>> but leaves its semantics entirely implementation-defined.
>>
>> I'm not convinced that this is useful. Any program that uses ``asm''
>> is inherently non-portable, and must be modified if it's to be ported
>> to another platform. I don't see how standardizing part of the syntax
>> aids portability (or anything else).
>
> It allows other tools to correctly parse (the C part of) the code
> without needing to know the asm quirks for particular compiler(s).

That's an *excellent* point.

In some circumstances, it might also be useful to write

#define asm(str) /* something-or-other */

though of course it's subject to abuse.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"