--- Comment #5 from drepper at redhat dot com 2005-12-26 05:52 ---
> What happens if you use -fno-common?
In this case the variable gets the index of .bss in the symbol table instead of
using SHN_COMMON.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25522
--- Comment #4 from geoffk at geoffk dot org 2005-12-23 23:33 ---
Subject: Re: New: zero-initialized constants are place in .bss
"drepper at redhat dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> const struct foo f;
>
> The compiler will mark the variable f in .bss instead of, as the const
>
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-12-21 19:46 ---
Subject: Re: zero-initialized constants are place in
.bss
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> Actually no, they are placed in the common section because of ANSI C rules.
There is no such
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-21 19:11 ---
If you really zero initialize them, you get them in the what you expect:
.section.rodata
.align 4
.type f, @object
.size f, 8
f:
.zero 8
-
Removing the cons
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-12-21 19:09 ---
.comm f,8,4
Actually no, they are placed in the common section because of ANSI C rules.
This is not a bug.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
