Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!brl-adm!adm!PEPRBV%CFAAMP.BITNET@husc6.harvard.EDU
From: PEPRBV%CFAAMP.BITNET@husc6.harvard.EDU (Bob Babcock)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Portable \"asm\" (Was: The D Programming Language)
Message-ID: <12153@brl-adm.ARPA>
Date: 6 Mar 88 05:04:42 GMT
Sender: news@brl-adm.ARPA
Lines: 15

>>Now, if I were implementing an "asm" construct, I'd probably do
>>something cheesy like
#asm
    Assembly code here...
#endasm

This is precisely the syntax used by the Microware OS-9/68K C compiler,
and I like it much better than the asm(...) construct which is more
to type and looks like a function call.  I use this construct to patch
in entry and exit code for an interrupt handler so that most of it can
be written in C, and I don't expect it to be portable.

Question: could a compiler which accepts this syntax be conforming under
the new ANSI standard?  If not, how about
     #pragma asm
     #pragma endasm?