On 11/27/20 5:47 AM, Matthew Malcomson via Gcc wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I was just looking through the history of how some code came about,
> and get the impression that DECL_NONSHAREABLE was meant to be removed.
>
> It seems like it was added to solve PR49103, with the idea that it
> could be removed once a more robust solution was added.
>
> Original comment and email mentioning the idea of this not being the
> final solution:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49103#c12
> https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg00480.html
>
> Email mentioning the idea to remove it later
> https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2011-06/msg01025.html
>
>
> I seems that the more invasive solution was eventually added.
> https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2011-11/msg00253.html
> Commit 47598145be, From-SVN: r181172
>
>
> Does that mean that the original DECL_NONSHAREABLE hack can be removed?
> (It seems like the extra bit in the tree structure can't since it's
> now used for something else, but I suspect we can still remove the
> code using it for this DECL_NONSHAREABLE purpose).
>
> I've ran a quick test on an AArch64 native configuration I had handy
> and that fortran test still passed, but don't have the time to look
> into it fully (especially given how I'm not familiar with this area).
Seems like a gcc-12 thing to me.
jeff
