The bug here isn't really the fact that GCC inline assembly is a string replacement macro language, which surprises a lot of people coming from other syntax like MSVC.
It's that the author wrote what looks to be a 20+ instruction entry and setup function and never once tried to verify it. You never write inline assembly without reading the resulting disassembly. It's like rule 0...
It's that the author wrote what looks to be a 20+ instruction entry and setup function and never once tried to verify it. You never write inline assembly without reading the resulting disassembly. It's like rule 0...