From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9027 invoked by alias); 3 May 2004 18:00:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 9011 invoked from network); 3 May 2004 18:00:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 May 2004 18:00:06 -0000 Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34) id AA23745; Mon, 3 May 04 14:00:38 EDT Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 18:00:00 -0000 From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Message-Id: <10405031800.AA23745@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> To: geoffk@geoffk.org Subject: Re: -fzero-initialized-in-bss again Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2004-05/txt/msg00062.txt.bz2 > What we are discussing is what object file section each variable > should go into. And what I'm saying is that this shouldn't depend on > whether a variable was written in C or Ada: it should only be a function > of language-independent attributes. This statement really doesn't make sense to me. It's like saying that what section a variable goes into should be the same between C and C++; if it was true, then we should be able to delete thousands of lines from the C++ frontend that are concerned with section and linkage selection. Not really. What I was trying to say is that the goal is to make Ada and C as compatible as possible in terms of data layout. One of the reasons for this has to do with the desire to use standard tools in an embedded environment and most of these are designed for C. Obviously, if there's something about a variable in C++ that can't be expressed in C, it isn't meaningful to do the same thing as for C. But if there *is* a simple analogy with C, the most user-friendly thing to do is to do exactly what C would do with that variable.