user0/rust
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Rollup merge of #88812 - gz:patch-1, r=ehuss

Browse source 
Fix typo `option` -> `options`.
This commit is contained in:
Manish Goregaokar 2021-09-10 08:23:27 -07:00 • committed by GitHub
commit f77311bc2b
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

2
src/doc/unstable-book/src/library-features/asm.md
View file

@ -375,7 +375,7 @@ Any reuse of a named label, local or otherwise, can result in a assembler or lin
As a consequence, you should only use GNU assembler **numeric** [local labels] inside inline assembly code. Defining symbols in assembly code may lead to assembler and/or linker errors due to duplicate symbol definitions.
Moreover, on x86 when using the default intel syntax, due to [an llvm bug], you shouldn't use labels exclusively made of `0` and `1` digits, e.g. `0`, `11` or `101010`, as they may end up being interpreted as binary values. Using `option(att_syntax)` will avoid any ambiguity, but that affects the syntax of the _entire_ `asm!` block.
Moreover, on x86 when using the default intel syntax, due to [an llvm bug], you shouldn't use labels exclusively made of `0` and `1` digits, e.g. `0`, `11` or `101010`, as they may end up being interpreted as binary values. Using `options(att_syntax)` will avoid any ambiguity, but that affects the syntax of the _entire_ `asm!` block.
```rust,allow_fail
#![feature(asm)]