On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 9:19 AM Thomas König <t...@tkoenig.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > thanks a lot for the extensive discussion :-) > > How should we now proceed, first for gcc 9, snd then for backporting? > Use Richard‘s patch with the corresponding Fortran FE change?
Btw, for the testcase the fortran FE could also simply opt to not make def_init TREE_READONLY. Or even better, for all-zero initialization omit the explicit initialization data and instead mark it specially in the vtable (just use a NULL initializer denoting zero-initialization?). Even .bss costs (runtime) memory. But yes, my patch would be a way to solve the middle-end issue of promoting a variable TREE_READONLY, preventing .bss use. And the FE could then "abuse" this feature. Note the middle-end already special-cases variables with an explicit section so the Fortran FE can already use that feature to put the initializer into .bss explicitely (set_decl_section_name (decl, ".bss"), conditional on availability (not 100% sure how to test that...). Your testcase probably will fail on targets w/o .bss section support. Richard. > Regards > > Thomas
