From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 36269 invoked by alias); 8 Apr 2019 08:38:13 -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 36253 invoked by uid 89); 8 Apr 2019 08:38:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_SHORT,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=Java, java, UD:redhat.com, Ltd 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; Mon, 08 Apr 2019 08:38:11 +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 9D75288E50; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 08:38:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zebedee.pink (unknown [10.33.36.74]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EA0119C79; Mon, 8 Apr 2019 08:38:09 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Putting an all-zero variable into BSS To: Thomas Koenig , Richard Biener Cc: gcc mailing list , "fortran@gcc.gnu.org" References: <87ef6koy6f.fsf@igel.home> <3930c1e6-fa7c-746b-c21a-8e8fa457deec@netcologne.de> <871s2ihkfs.fsf@igel.home> <361F609E-2767-4AF6-BD0C-E41F4666AAF2@gmail.com> <441499d5-9b84-2d5e-e152-654f4014c0f4@netcologne.de> From: Andrew Haley Openpgp: preference=signencrypt Message-ID: Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2019 08:38:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <441499d5-9b84-2d5e-e152-654f4014c0f4@netcologne.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-04/txt/msg00107.txt.bz2 On 4/7/19 5:03 PM, Thomas Koenig wrote: > Hi Richard, > >> I don't know without looking, but I'd start at assemble_variable in varasm.c. > > Thanks. I've done that, and this is what a patch could look like. > However, I will not have time to formally submit this until next > weekend. > > In the meantime, comments are still welcome :-) Did you look at https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83100 This was the change that caused this behaviour. -- Andrew Haley Java Platform Lead Engineer Red Hat UK Ltd. EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671