X64 inline asm

[matt]

The issue with inline asm is you have to implement differnet set for different arch: i386, x86_64, IA64 etc. The only motivation for me, is using "lock", since VS lacks of support.

Anyone is familiar with Intel c compiler for Windows ? I want to confirm whehter intel c compiler supports these items:

1, structure designated initializers
Three formats are widely used, especially the 1st:
a) struct test {int i, j, k, l;} a = {.l = 60, .i = 10};
b) int array[8] = {[0] = 10, [5] = 60}; /* only initialize the
1st and 5th members */
c) struct test {int i, j, k, l;} a = {l = 60, i = 10};

2, macros to return a value

Complex macroes need "({ ... )}" style to return a value, eg:
1) #define min(X, Y) ({ typeof (X) x_ = (X); typeof (Y) y_ = (Y); \
(x_ < y_) ? x_ : y_; })
2) #define my_macro(cond, p1) ({while (cond) {rc = func(p1);}; rc;})
WDK compiler only supports "()" or "{}" styles. the former can carry
a return value but with limitations; the latter can not return a value
to its caller.
3, typeof

I'd like to replace MS compiler of WinDDK if intel compiler supports these features.

[Fyyre]

1b. As

int array[8] = {array[0] = 10, array[5] = 60};

Both macros, yes.

Somethings will require slight adjusting. I too use the Intel Compiler for driver building, from inside of Visual Studio 2008.

-Fyyre

Originally Posted by matt

The issue with inline asm is you have to implement differnet set for different arch: i386, x86_64, IA64 etc. The only motivation for me, is using "lock", since VS lacks of support.

Anyone is familiar with Intel c compiler for Windows ? I want to confirm whehter intel c compiler supports these items:

1, structure designated initializers
Three formats are widely used, especially the 1st:
a) struct test {int i, j, k, l;} a = {.l = 60, .i = 10};
b) int array[8] = {[0] = 10, [5] = 60}; /* only initialize the
1st and 5th members */
c) struct test {int i, j, k, l;} a = {l = 60, i = 10};

2, macros to return a value

Complex macroes need "({ ... )}" style to return a value, eg:
1) #define min(X, Y) ({ typeof (X) x_ = (X); typeof (Y) y_ = (Y); \
(x_ < y_) ? x_ : y_; })
2) #define my_macro(cond, p1) ({while (cond) {rc = func(p1);}; rc;})
WDK compiler only supports "()" or "{}" styles. the former can carry
a return value but with limitations; the latter can not return a value
to its caller.
3, typeof

I'd like to replace MS compiler of WinDDK if intel compiler supports these features.

[matt]

Thanks, Fyyre! What version of intel C compiler are you using ? And what icl options did you specify when compiling ?

Originally Posted by Fyyre

....
Both macros, yes.

I gave it a try with Intel(R) C++ Compiler Professional 11.1.065 (evaluation)
with option /Qc99 (to enable c99 support).

But icl failed to compile the macros. "({})" style macro isn't supported. typeof neither.

Somethings will require slight adjusting. I too use the Intel Compiler for driver building, from inside of Visual Studio 2008.

Two types of the 3 structure initializers are supported.That solves lots issues, anyway.

-Fyyre

Thank you,
Matt

The Intel C++ Compiler also has less C++0x support than the latest GCC and MSVC compilers. Also note that you nee MSVC(earlier than 2010) installed to use the Intel compiler on Windows. Even if you don't plan to use Visual Studio integration. It depends on some of the command-line tools and the includes/libraries.

I believe that 11.1 was released in 2009, so hopefully they will release a new version sometime soon that can at least integrate with the new Visual Studio. The C++0x part might not seen too important, but the problem I ran into with it was not being able to use recent GCC headers for TR1 due to the implementations being updated to make use of C++0x features. It isn't fun to lack access to std::tr1::shared_ptr.

I haven't tested the Intel compiler with VS2008 yet as I lost my installation DVD. I _think_ it got TR1 support in a feature pack, but I'm not positive. If it did, I do not know if it makes use of C++0x features that the Intel compiler is missing. Maybe someone else can comment on this aspect.

One last thought: I'm not sure how boost implements shared_ptr, but it is likely very similar to how the new GCC headers implement it. There is a chance, however, that it would compile with the Intel compiler. Myabe someone else can comment on this too.