Hello Bernhard,
On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 9:20 AM Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
wrote:
> > > * decl.cc: Add EXT_ATTR_NOINLINE, EXT_ATTR_NORETURN, EXT_ATTR_WEAK.
> > > * gfortran.h (ext_attr_id_t): Ditto.
> >
> > We had that discussion recently here..
> > Which of these are required to be recorded to th
Hi Rimvydas!
On Sat, 18 Feb 2023 21:35:47 +0100
Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 07:42:47 +0200
> Rimvydas Jasinskas via Fortran wrote:
>
> > * decl.cc: Add EXT_ATTR_NOINLINE, EXT_ATTR_NORETURN, EXT_ATTR_WEAK.
> > * gfortran.h (ext_attr_id_t): Ditto.
>
> We had that dis
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"
An: "Harald Anlauf"
Cc: "fortran"
Bet
Hi Rimvydas,
> Gesendet: Sonntag, 12. Februar 2023 um 07:59 Uhr
> Von: "Rimvydas Jasinskas"
> An: "Harald Anlauf"
> Cc: "fortran"
> Betreff: Re: Support for NOINLINE attribute
>
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 11:26 PM Harald Anlauf wrote:
&
On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 11:26 PM Harald Anlauf 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 r
Hi Rimvydas,
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 11:07 PM Harald Anlauf via Fortran
> wrote:
> >-NOINLINE: I disagree with Steve here; we shouldn't invent a new
> > syntax (noinline on/off), and rather follow what other compilers
> > provide (INLINE/NOINLINE).
> It would also be very complicated to imple
On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 11:07 PM Harald Anlauf via Fortran
wrote:
> I actually like the idea of supporting the suggested attributes,
> provided they work and behave the same way with and without LTO.
All these three declaration attributes apply the same regardless of
LTO, LTO just expands what opt
On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 10:07:24PM +0100, Harald Anlauf via Fortran wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I actually like the idea of supporting the suggested attributes,
> provided they work and behave the same way with and without LTO.
>
> - NOINLINE: I disagree with Steve here; we shouldn't invent a new
>
Hello all,
I actually like the idea of supporting the suggested attributes,
provided they work and behave the same way with and without LTO.
- NOINLINE: I disagree with Steve here; we shouldn't invent a new
syntax (noinline on/off), and rather follow what other compilers
provide (INLINE/NOINL
On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 10:38:04AM +0200, Rimvydas Jasinskas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 10:24 AM Steve Kargl via Fortran
> wrote:
> > > would it be possible to extend gfortran attribute support to handle
> > > NOINLINE too? Like: "!GCC$ ATTRIBUTES noinline :: ...".
> >
> > It looks to me lik
On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 10:24 AM Steve Kargl via Fortran
wrote:
> > would it be possible to extend gfortran attribute support to handle
> > NOINLINE too? Like: "!GCC$ ATTRIBUTES noinline :: ...".
>
> It looks to me like you are conflating three independent topics.
> What does NOINLINE have to do w
On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 07:42:47AM +0200, Rimvydas Jasinskas via Fortran wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> would it be possible to extend gfortran attribute support to handle
> NOINLINE too? Like: "!GCC$ ATTRIBUTES noinline :: ...".
It looks to me like you are conflating three independent topics.
What
12 matches
Mail list logo
