Pushed as:
commit 086a1df4374962787db37c1f0d1bd9beb828f9e3
Thanks,
Harald
On 2/12/23 22:28, Harald Anlauf via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi Rimvydas,
Gesendet: Sonntag, 12. Februar 2023 um 07:59 Uhr
Von: "Rimvydas Jasinskas" <rimvydas...@gmail.com>
An: "Harald Anlauf" <anl...@gmx.de>
Cc: "fortran" <fortran@gcc.gnu.org>
Betreff: Re: Support for NOINLINE attribute
On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 11:26 PM Harald Anlauf <anl...@gmx.de> wrote:
I am also not a native speaker, like many others contributing, but let
me quote the relevant orignal paragraph:
"The @code{noreturn} keyword tells the compiler to assume that
@code{fatal} cannot return. It can then optimize without regard to what
would happen if @code{fatal} ever did return. This makes slightly
better code. More importantly, it helps avoid spurious warnings of
uninitialized variables."
My reading of this original paragraph differs very much from the
intention I get from the shortened version. Would you please reread?
Same, from extend.texi, see gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/noreturn-3.f90
It is about marking dead conditional branches, so that the compiler
can prove proper initialization (no -Wmaybe-uninitialized given). It
should behave the same as in C frontend.
True. And that's the whole point (IMHO), not silencing the compiler.
Hmm both look the same to me, the silencing of false positive
diagnostics is already implied by spurious. To simplify I have
changed it in v2 to just:
"add a hint that a given function cannot return" documentation could
be expanded later.
But shouldn't we rather follow what the C family of compilers in the
first place does for a particular target? Most relevant libraries
for Fortran code are either C/C++ or Fortran anyway, including any
of the common MPI implementations, so should we care about Ada?
I agree with you. I have removed SUPPORTS_WEAK check and fixed
indentation in v2.
Regtested cleany on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
Regards,
Rimvydas
this version of the patch looks good to me, so it is basically OK
to commit.
There is one thing I cannot test, which is the handling of weak symbols
on other platforms. A quick glance at the C testcases suggests that
someone with access to either an NVPTX or MingGW target might tell
whether that particular target should be excluded. So I'd like to wait
for 24 hours for others to comment on this.
I see that you've signed-off your patch. Do you have commit rights?
Otherwise I'll commit for you. (I've CC'ed to gcc-patches@ for this
purpose.)
Thanks for the patch!
Harald
