search for: __builtin_patchable_branch

...in using inline assembly in a way that's ultimately significantly harder for the compiler to support than a language feature, and now it's your problem." I agree with Chandler that we should just design and implement the language feature. > > I would recommend: > > if (__builtin_patchable_branch("section name")) { > trace(); > } > > ==> > > %0 = call i1 @llvm.patchable_branch(i8* @sectionNameString) > br %0, ... > > where @llvm.patchable_branch has the semantics of appending whatever patching information is necessary to the given section...

...ately significantly harder for > > the compiler to support than a language feature, and now it's your > > problem."  I agree with Chandler that we should just design and > > implement the language feature. > > > > I would recommend: > > > >   if (__builtin_patchable_branch("section name")) { > >     trace(); > >   } > > > > ==> > > > >   %0 = call i1 @llvm.patchable_branch(i8* @sectionNameString) > >   br %0, ... > > > > where @llvm.patchable_branch has the semantics of appending > > whatever...

My two cents: - I think inline assembly should work even if the compiler cannot parse the contents. This would rule out msvc inline assembly (or alternatively put all the parsing and interpretation burden on the frontend), but would work with gcc asm goto which specifies possible targets separately. - Supporting control flow in inline assembly by allowing jumps out of an assembly block seems