From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-help-return-62755-listarch-gcc-help=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 30238 invoked by alias); 2 Nov 2018 11:13:19 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-help.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 30216 invoked by uid 89); 2 Nov 2018 11:13:18 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:924
X-HELO: mail-it1-f180.google.com
Received: from mail-it1-f180.google.com (HELO mail-it1-f180.google.com) (209.85.166.180) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Nov 2018 11:13:16 +0000
Received: by mail-it1-f180.google.com with SMTP id p64-v6so2686381itp.0        for <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>; Fri, 02 Nov 2018 04:13:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;        d=gmail.com; s=20161025;        h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to         :cc;        bh=DGHJxn865Kznas/TRFooeFlES+sH+eBPiYZYaYCKo0Q=;        b=jb3LuXKq78mo7Mmk3djkjfWLVMcY2v4IKdmMCZxwmmL4C/HgIYdVsZT/f2r1gWiwHA         KgmzFbEzxiXopiBemsw0SmqgvbwCRTTaLV0TB8s67WWQF1pq/CDISxHA/Ghfu4VLQ6B7         FcksQCdmS4yUx9JPRlmVkZzIJIO1Ui3k/3KFWrHaa8Dsr7V/fc68N+NfmyWxMoejZQ7g         bL1Hxtd9jbFWItnvLynxOGc6/EBMzB5o5RbqPNlp5MR8LyiQsAFnUqJ7LTIJw0j8Hepa         RtMcMYGGIxZhRJVzq9dSIO5Q0k8gLwEauGYnR8dgVm4JNV4J3pOB5/fg1eQjnOhlO7Op         lAEQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFD1m3ELeJggm0LVhegaVAXpOGo1nvy8AK81Xq1BgPxdsiR5NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAH6eHdRi8a-b7MYz-8FEjSW8OC6ijWi9FJv1fbexEOjs=B0-mg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAH6eHdRi8a-b7MYz-8FEjSW8OC6ijWi9FJv1fbexEOjs=B0-mg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2018 11:13:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAH6eHdQkMEy+xFH0-jsmmkadP52vW7=MryVdYHbEXPmP37ab6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Why is there now a difference between "{static const char a[]={...}" and "{const char a[]={...}"?
To: John Carter <john.carter@taitradio.com>
Cc: gcc-help <gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2018-11/txt/msg00006.txt.bz2

On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 at 11:11, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2018 at 02:16, John Carter wrote:
> >
> > https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/6c4QLO
> >
> > Something changed between gcc 4.1 and 4.4
>
> I think this changed with https://gcc.gnu.org/r143570 to fix
> https://gcc.gnu.org/PR38615
>
> See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-11/msg00201.html and
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2008-11/msg00202.html for a more complete
> explanation of why the 4.1 behaviour is non-conforming and had to be
> fixed.
>
> If you use -fmerge-all-constants you get the old behaviour back, but
> as noted in the manual that option makes the program non-confirming.

s/non-confirming/non-conforming/

> If your program doesn't rely on stack variables having distinct
> addresses in recursive calls, you can probably use that option safely.