Re: Support for NOINLINE attribute

[Harald Anlauf <anlauf@gmx.de>]

Hi Rimvydas,

> Gesendet: Sonntag, 12. Februar 2023 um 07:59 Uhr
> Von: "Rimvydas Jasinskas" <rimvydasjas@gmail.com>
> An: "Harald Anlauf" <anlauf@gmx.de>
> Cc: "fortran" <fortran@gcc.gnu.org>
> Betreff: Re: Support for NOINLINE attribute
>
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 11:26 PM Harald Anlauf <anlauf@gmx.de> wrote:
> > I am also not a native speaker, like many others contributing, but let
> > me quote the relevant orignal paragraph:
> >
> > "The @code{noreturn} keyword tells the compiler to assume that
> > @code{fatal} cannot return.  It can then optimize without regard to what
> > would happen if @code{fatal} ever did return.  This makes slightly
> > better code.  More importantly, it helps avoid spurious warnings of
> > uninitialized variables."
> >
> > My reading of this original paragraph differs very much from the
> > intention I get from the shortened version.  Would you please reread?
> >
> > > Same, from extend.texi, see gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/noreturn-3.f90
> > > It is about marking dead conditional branches, so that the compiler
> > > can prove proper initialization (no -Wmaybe-uninitialized given).  It
> > > should behave the same as in C frontend.
> >
> > True.  And that's the whole point (IMHO), not silencing the compiler.
> Hmm both look the same to me, the silencing of false positive
> diagnostics is already implied by spurious.  To simplify I have
> changed it in v2 to just:
> "add a hint that a given function cannot return" documentation could
> be expanded later.
>
> > But shouldn't we rather follow what the C family of compilers in the
> > first place does for a particular target?  Most relevant libraries
> > for Fortran code are either C/C++ or Fortran anyway, including any
> > of the common MPI implementations, so should we care about Ada?
> I agree with you.  I have removed SUPPORTS_WEAK check and fixed
> indentation in v2.
>
> Regtested cleany on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
>
> Regards,
> Rimvydas

this version of the patch looks good to me, so it is basically OK
to commit.

There is one thing I cannot test, which is the handling of weak symbols
on other platforms.  A quick glance at the C testcases suggests that
someone with access to either an NVPTX or MingGW target might tell
whether that particular target should be excluded.  So I'd like to wait
for 24 hours for others to comment on this.

I see that you've signed-off your patch.  Do you have commit rights?
Otherwise I'll commit for you.  (I've CC'ed to gcc-patches@ for this
purpose.)

Thanks for the patch!

Harald