Comment by tialaramex

Sure, I agree that if you're making a CPUID inline assembly template that isn't setting the register value, and it accepts any values for EAX that would also cause it to read ECX then the behavior is going to be undefined and likely unexpected, but that doesn't seem to be a reason for this not to compile.

For one, requiring an input parameter when it isn't mandatory would mean that you're spending cycles setting a register with a value that you don't need and is just going to be overwritten anyway. A good number of the CPUID calls never read from ECX, and if you're going to call any of them, then the value in ECX is irrelevant. And sure, it's only an extra instruction or two, but presumably if you're dropping down to inline assembly, you kind of care about every wasted instruction.

Again, this seems to me like it should be a perfectly valid assembly template (based on https://www.felixcloutier.com/x86/cpuid):

    // Returns the maximum input value for basic CPUID information
    cpu_extended_feature_flags :: asm() -> (a, b, c, d: u32) [
        a = %eax,
        b = %ebx,
        c = %ecx,
        d = %edx,
    ] {
        mov %eax 0x0
        cpuid
    }

I admit I never touch inline assembly or really assembly at all save for the occasional microcontroller project, so maybe I'm missing something that's obvious to people more familiar with this. But to me the article seems to be sayin that the Odin templates will type check and validate that IF you have inputs from Odin types that are being put into registers or used as operands to your assembly, or are mapping registers and outputs from your assembly back to Odin types, that those mappings will be type compatible, and when you get those mappings wrong, you'll get a more useful error. But I didn't read it as saying that it will prevent you from writing assembly that does something completely unrelated to those inputs or outputs.