This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch, Fortran] PRs 52751/40973 - don't set TREE_PUBLIC for PRIVATE module procs/vars
- From: Paul Richard Thomas <paul dot richard dot thomas at gmail dot com>
- To: Tobias Burnus <burnus at net-b dot de>
- Cc: gcc patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gfortran <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 11:31:48 +0200
- Subject: Re: [Patch, Fortran] PRs 52751/40973 - don't set TREE_PUBLIC for PRIVATE module procs/vars
- References: <4F7B6924.email@example.com>
This is OK for trunk - thanks for the patch.
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Tobias Burnus <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Dear all,
> the attached patch only sets TREE_PUBLIC for module variables and module
> procedures which have neither the PRIVATE attribute nor a C-binding label.
> Seemingly, only NAG f95 does this for module variables and none of my
> compilers does this for module procedures.
> The main effect of this patch is a code size reduction as the compiler might
> (even without -fwhole-program -flto) optimize unused variables/procedures
> away. Additionally, the compiler might inline code which it otherwise
> wouldn't do (due to the code size increase) or do optimizations based on the
> value of the module variables (though, GCC has room for improvement for
> optimizing static variables.)
> Note: For C-binding variables without binding label ("bind(C, name='')"), I
> don't use DECL_COMMON. That should be okay as DECL_COMMON is only used to
> make sure that a variable can be initialized from either C or Fortran. But
> without binding name, that's not possible from C, hence, that's fine.
> Build and regtested on x86-64-linux. (And currently regtesting again - after
> a minor modification.)
> OK for the trunk?
The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
? ? ?? --Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy