From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 33857 invoked by alias); 29 Jan 2019 10:13:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 33848 invoked by uid 89); 29 Jan 2019 10:13:04 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,KAM_SHORT,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=archives, H*i:sk:aJOPdv5, H*i:sk:nvBkHNs, H*f:sk:nvBkHNs X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:13:03 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30039C0CB12C; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:13:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-116-106.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.106]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BEA3516D28; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:13:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x0TACxeA013893; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 11:12:59 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x0TACvRr013892; Tue, 29 Jan 2019 11:12:57 +0100 Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:13:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Bernhard Schommer Cc: David Brown , GCC Development Subject: Re: -fno-common Message-ID: <20190129101257.GL2135@tucnak> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <0c95c3f5-c9cb-8e36-a1d0-9b024c666564@westcontrol.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-01/txt/msg00249.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 11:09:35AM +0100, Bernhard Schommer wrote: > Thanks for the fast answer, sorry if I posted this on the wrong list. > Actually I was looking at this not due to changes in my code but > rather to implement the option for another compiler and I wanted to > mimic the behavior of gcc and was kind of confused in the change of > behavior. See the "Fix inconsistent section flags" thread in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-{07,08,09}/ archives for the rationale. Jakub