https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96158
--- Comment #4 from AJM <amelvill at umich dot edu> --- >> I won't comment on the questionable programming idiom of placing >> a common block in a module, which kind of defeats the niceties of >> a module. > If somebody wants to transition your code from using common blocks to > modules, that is a good way to proceed. When all the direct usage > of the common block have been removed, you can then remove the > COMMON statement from the module. This is the case, more or less. I didn't write the code that did this. I would be quite happy to see the common blocks get moved to a module, but to make things a bit more dangerous on that side, these variables are bound to a C variable. If I could find a way to move the common statements to a module that was guaranteed to have no issues whatsoever (UB, data alignment, etc., including on the C side), I would be happy to do it. However, I haven't found enough information on this to feel confident about it (there's significant gaps in the documentation I've found), so it seems irresponsible to risk introducing bugs for the sake of getting GDB working.
