This is the mail archive of the fortran@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: BLOCK DATA ?

From: Paul Brook <paul at codesourcery dot com>
To: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Cc: Tobias Schlüter <tobias dot schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de>,Salvatore Filippone <sfilippone at uniroma2 dot it>, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 15:33:02 +0100
Subject: Re: BLOCK DATA ?
Organization: CodeSourcery
References: <1093864861.2750.4.camel@euler> <41331C56.9030700@physik.uni-muenchen.de> <41332011.4090104@physik.uni-muenchen.de>

On Monday 30 August 2004 13:39, Tobias Schlüter wrote:
> Arg, patch retracted.
>
> Tobias Schlüter wrote:
> >>+       static int serial = 0;
> >>+       char name[GFC_MAX_SYMBOL_LEN+1];
> >>
> >>+       snprintf (name, GFC_MAX_SYMBOL_LEN, "_BLOCK_DATA_%d", serial++);
>
> This will of course break when there are BLOCK DATAs in different files,
> it's still an enhancement over the current situation, but I don't think
> it's worth it.

Why are we outputting assembly for BLOCK DATA in the first place?

I can see it makes things easier for the frontend treats them as procedures, 
but I don't see any reason to actually generate code for these.

Paul

References:
- BLOCK DATA ?
  - From: Salvatore Filippone
- Re: BLOCK DATA ?
  - From: Tobias Schlüter
- Re: BLOCK DATA ?
  - From: Tobias Schlüter

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]