I think we might be talking past each other here. Whether the assembly op is `cpuid` or something else, isn’t really my driving concern. The comment that started this thread (which I’m pretty sure wasn’t yours, so I don’t necessarily expect you to have an answer) was that they didn’t think this example should have compiled because `cpuid` may read from a second register as part of its operations, depending on the value passed to the first register.
But that seems to be saying that the inline assembly template should have the same shape as the underlying assembly calls that are made. If the underlying call might read 3 registers, then the complaint appears to be that the templating system MUST require a template that calls that assembly to also have 3 inputs, even if it won’t use all 3.
My thinking on this is the templating is a syntax for function declarations where the function is assembly code and not more higher level language code. We don’t require that functions have the same number of inputs and outputs that the code called within the function has in order for it to compile, I don’t see why it would be necessary for the assembly templates to work any differently. I get that `cpuid` specifically isn’t likely to run in the hot path of any code, but the underlying principle is the same. If you’re dropping to assembly, you likely have some performance tuning you’re trying to do. A templating system that requires your template inputs to 1:1 map to all the possible inputs of all the assembly calls you use in the template, regardless of wether you need or use them is adding extra instructions and waste for (to me) no obvious benefits.
But that seems to be saying that the inline assembly template should have the same shape as the underlying assembly calls that are made. If the underlying call might read 3 registers, then the complaint appears to be that the templating system MUST require a template that calls that assembly to also have 3 inputs, even if it won’t use all 3.
My thinking on this is the templating is a syntax for function declarations where the function is assembly code and not more higher level language code. We don’t require that functions have the same number of inputs and outputs that the code called within the function has in order for it to compile, I don’t see why it would be necessary for the assembly templates to work any differently. I get that `cpuid` specifically isn’t likely to run in the hot path of any code, but the underlying principle is the same. If you’re dropping to assembly, you likely have some performance tuning you’re trying to do. A templating system that requires your template inputs to 1:1 map to all the possible inputs of all the assembly calls you use in the template, regardless of wether you need or use them is adding extra instructions and waste for (to me) no obvious benefits.